[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Xvim wrote:
… it’s an interesting idea that has no bearing on the scientific community.
If anybody has any doubts whatsoever about ID’s place in the classroom, re-read the statement above.
The entire Kansas debacle was caused by people who are anti-evolution. That’s it. They don’t want to be monkeys, they want to be special somehow. Sorry guys, but you are monkeys. I mean, knock yourself out with your pronouncements of how God has a plan for you, etc., but don’t try to tell me that there’s no such thing as evolution.
Lothario, they are not monkeys. They may have monkeys for cousins though.[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
All I’m trying to get across is that macroevolution theory is not science, not by any stretch of the imagination, it’s philosphy based in a religious presuposition. (It’s faith-based, dude. You have to have hooooooge amounts of faith. You won’t buy into that but it’s true. Read the above posts written by evoutionists like Stephen Jay Gould)[/quote]
You’re wrong on the principle of macroevolution not being a science (whether you believe macroevolution or not is another issue). Science breaks down into four areas, pure, applied, natural, and social. Pure constitutes the portion of sciences where theory is generated. Pure and applied sciences are exact sciences, that is, the are testable by measurement, experimentation, prediction, and/or observation. Macroevolution predicts phenomenon we observe to be true, through this, it is also subject to experimentation and while it is not observable, observation is not the only requisite for it to be a science.
Also, as others said, you keep drawing a distinct line between macro and micro evolution. Where is that line drawn? 10 yrs.? You certainly won’t draw it here because macroevolution would be observable in time periods >10 yrs… 100 yrs.? You might draw it around here, because no single human would actually witness macroevolution that took much more than 100 yrs. but civilizations easily can and do observe it. 1000 yrs.? Sure, evolution as a concept hasn’t been around this long and lots of civilizations don’t last this long. So, <1000 yrs. is microevolution and >1000 yrs. is macroevolution.
However, evolution is only time dependent with respect to generation time, so for a bacteria 1000 yrs. is untold lifetimes and you’ll see lots and lots of evolution, for a dog it’s about 100 and maybe you’ll see some, for a human it’s about 10 you probably won’t see any, for sea turtles and trees it’s two or less. So, drawing a distinct line in time and saying this side is macroevolution and this side is micro is capricious and arbitrary.
Another nail in the coffin I suppose, folks here keep quoting a 30 year old text by Gould. A lot of the criticisms he had have been adressed over the last 3 decades, check it out
[quote]Xvim wrote:
Another nail in the coffin I suppose, folks here keep quoting a 30 year old text by Gould. A lot of the criticisms he had have been adressed over the last 3 decades, check it out :)[/quote]
You’re expecting Creationist arguments to evolve? Good luck.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It has been repeated here over and over again by both sides of this argument that scientific facts are established when phenomena can be observed and tested, observed and tested. Macroevolution cannot meet that criteria. It can’t and it hasn’t and saying it has doesn’t make it so.
[/quote]
It would appear that I spoke too soon! LOL
Atomic structure hasn’t and can’t physically be observed. We cannot make a microscope to look at an electron. The observation part of how we test atomic structure is done indirectly, just like macroevolution. Our indirect observation of macroevolution is demonstrated quite amply in the fossil record. Did you click the link on the horse fossils I posted up earlier?
If macroevolution doesn’t happen, push, then how do we explain the plethora of lifeforms around here? Everything else has been thoroughly – and I do mean thoroughly – debunked.
The bottom line is neither macroevolution nor I.D./special creation can be observed and tested. Both are theories. Neither has moved beyond theory status and probably never will. You know why? Both theories deal with events that supposedly happened in the distant past and that puts true science in a real quandary. Facts in the scientific sense cannot be established here.
Like Push said, just saying it’s so doesn’t make it so. I know this grinds on you guys that REALLY do believe that macroevolution is just flat-out proven and indisputable. But you’re not being intellectually honest here. You’re not being scientific and you’re not being objective. If you were, at the very least, you’d be saying “Yes, evolution is a theory. I think it’s a very good theory. I think it’s the best theory out there but I recognize it is a theory. I believe that sometime in the future things may change but at the present time I recognize there seem to be limits on moving this theory on to a proveable, established fact.”
I know I’m willing to say “Yes, I.D. is a theory. I think it’s a very good theory. I think it’s the best theory out there but I recognize it is a theory. I believe that sometime in the future things may change but at the present time I recognize there seem to be limits on moving this theory on to a proveable, established fact”.
Why is this so difficult for many of you? Why all the name-calling and dick-waving on this thread? Why the snotty condescending attitudes? Some of you seem so doggoned offended that someone may suggest a competing theory to yours has merit. This is where the accusations come from that some macroevolutionists are “religious”…because they get so bent out of shape and emotional when someone differs with them on this subject. It’s true and it’s recorded right here on this thread in several of the above posts on this fantastic website that is dubbed “Bodybuilding’s Think Tank”. Now lighten up and enjoy the ride!
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
I know I’m willing to say “Yes, I.D. is a theory. I think it’s a very good theory. I think it’s the best theory out there but I recognize it is a theory. I believe that sometime in the future things may change but at the present time I recognize there seem to be limits on moving this theory on to a proveable, established fact”.[/quote]
Okay. Call it lemon meringue pie if you want, but ID is NOT a SCIENTIFIC theory, throttle. I’m sorry, it just isn’t science, as this thread was all about to begin with. Evolutionary theory IS scientific theory. Big difference there.
Not bent out of shape so much as incredulous, buddy. The thought that some people think the earth was created in seven days, or that God magically made stuff happen to give us all this beauty in the world… is just preposterous and hilarious to me. What makes the beauty of our world even more so is realizing that there WASN’T a guiding hand. This world we live on is natural and follows the way of the universe… not the unnatural stroke of a deity’s pen.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
The bottom line is neither macroevolution nor I.D./special creation can be observed and tested. Both are theories. [/quote]
I believe this is the third time I’ve posted this on this thread, and as you can gather from it ID is not a theory.
Scientific Theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
“Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.” – Stephen J. Gould
And there has been a great deal of links and articles posted here on how macroevolution is not needed to support the theory of evolution. The only rebuttals have been to ignore them and post that it’s still needed. I’m with the other guys and I’m calling out a straw man.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Not bent out of shape so much as incredulous, buddy. The thought that some people think the earth was created in seven days, or that God magically made stuff happen to give us all this beauty in the world… is just preposterous and hilarious to me. What makes the beauty of our world even more so is realizing that there WASN’T a guiding hand. This world we live on is natural and follows the way of the universe… not the unnatural stroke of a deity’s pen.[/quote]
Evolution is a Scientific Theory that meets all of the requirements of good science. Intellegent Design is an interesting concept born from a desire to reconcile evolution with religion. I don’ thave a problem with folks who want to believe in ID, just don’t try to force it into a science class. If you can look at the mound of evidence supporting common descent and then look at the total lack of anything but faith supporting ID and consider them equally valid that’s fine.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
The bottom line is neither macroevolution nor I.D./special creation can be observed and tested. Both are theories.
I believe this is the third time I’ve posted this on this thread, and as you can gather from it ID is not a theory.
Scientific Theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
“Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.” – Stephen J. Gould
And there has been a great deal of links and articles posted here on how macroevolution is not needed to support the theory of evolution. The only rebuttals have been to ignore them and post that it’s still needed. I’m with the other guys and I’m calling out a straw man. [/quote]
I believe this is the third time I’ve posted this on this thread and as you have not gathered from it, I’ll say it again. Your saying that evolution is a fact does not make it one. Even committed evolutionists with impeccable credentials are honest enough to admit it is a theory not a fact. You “religious” evolutionists on this thread obviously are not in this camp. By “religious” evolutionists I am talking about those of you who scream “Allah Akbar” (without realizing it) as you defend your sacred theory.
Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. …" – Stephen J. Gould
[/quote]
Whoops! You screwed up by using a quote that mentions Newton and Einstein. Both believed in I.D. and special creation.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
The bottom line is neither macroevolution nor I.D./special creation can be observed and tested. Both are theories.
I believe this is the third time I’ve posted this on this thread, and as you can gather from it ID is not a theory.
Scientific Theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
“Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.” – Stephen J. Gould
And there has been a great deal of links and articles posted here on how macroevolution is not needed to support the theory of evolution. The only rebuttals have been to ignore them and post that it’s still needed. I’m with the other guys and I’m calling out a straw man.
I believe this is the third time I’ve posted this on this thread and as you have not gathered from it, I’ll say it again. Your saying that evolution is a fact does not make it one. Even committed evolutionists with impeccable credentials are honest enough to admit it is a theory not a fact. You “religious” evolutionists on this thread obviously are not in this camp. By “religious” evolutionists I am talking about those of you who scream “Allah Akbar” (without realizing it) as you defend your sacred theory.[/quote]
Scientific Theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
A scientific theory has a great deal of weight to it. ID is not a theory. Evolution is backed with a great deal of factual evidence. ID is not.
If you continue to ignore this I don’t think we can take you seriously anymore.
