cool. now it’s not even a theory. it’s a hypothesis.
wow again.
[quote]novocaine wrote:
cool. now it’s not even a theory. it’s a hypothesis.
wow again.[/quote]
Hey, it took us 30 pages to explain too him the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
Hence he no longer attacks the theory of evolution but the hypothesis and is therefore automatically in the upper echelons of creationist thinkers.
Because you just know that 99,9% of the time they will say:
Hey, its just a theory.
i know there’s no point in posting things like that, but still, dum spiro, spero…
but hey, you can always argue with the greatest minds of our humble species.
Anyone hear about the deal with the hawthorn flies?
Speciation in progress?
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Actually there is some evidence that man is closely related to other primates. [/quote]
Ahaha!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
some stuff
[/quote]
First of all, let’s get our terminology straight.
Evolution is a theory, in that it is a set of principles which purports to explain certain physical phenomena. A theory is not required to be testable, merely to be explanatory, nor is a theory ever proven, though it can be discredited. In fact, it is quite easy to disprove a theory, as one contradictory claim will require revision of the entire model (model is often a synonym for theory).
A hypothesis, on the other hand, is a testable claim. A hypothesis can be predicated on a theory, such that proof of the hypothesis supports the theory. The hypothesis that mammals share a large portion of common genetic material is demonstrably true. The theory of evolution claims that all mammals should share common genetic material. Ergo, the truth of this hypothesis supports (=is evidence for) the theory of evolution.
Some other stuff, in no particular order:
-
“Best model” is not a subjective claim. The best model is the one which has the most supporting evidence, and the least contradictory evidence. That model, vis a vis biological diversity, is evolution via natural selection.
-
I don’t even know what you mean by “a discussion of origins”. The origin of new species via selection pressures has, in fact, been observed. Go back to the last page and look at what DD and I discussed about regarding belief versus assumption.
-
It’s rather bold of you to claim that I have a preexisting bias towards evolution when you hold to biblical creation based on faith. I have absolutely no stake in the theory of evolution.
-
Say what you will, but reasonable scientists have never tried to inject themselves into religious debates. Religion deals with the supernatural, science with the natural, and ne’er the twain shall meet. Richard Dawkins and his crowd is not representative of most scientists.
-
The scientific community does not reject literal creation as a scientific theory because of faith or belief in evolution, but rather because it is not supported by physical evidence, ergo, it is not a competing theory. Think what you like, but there is no massive conspiracy to discredit literal creation. It is already a discredited theory, like Maxwell’s ether. An intellectually honest evolutionist will tell you exactly that, because it is the truth.
-
The scientific method is not infallible, and no one claims that it is. Certainly no one has claimed that it’s practitioners are infallible. However, this does not totally discredit their work. The scientific method eschews the supernatural, which may very well be a fallacy. There is nothing special about it, it is simply the successive application of reasoned, evidence-based argument.
-
Science is not, and has never claimed to hold any claim upon, absolute, unimpeachable truth. Every time a creationist argues that literal creation is science, they are ascribing to science that which science has never claimed to explain - the absolute literal truth of the origins of…well, everything.
[quote]orion wrote:
Hey, it took us 30 pages to explain too him the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
[/quote]
It took 30 pages to explain it incorrectly?
I don’t understand. Ok I’ll admit that most of the theories and hypotheses proposed by science regarding the creation of the universe require leaps of faith, that could be said about any and all knowledge but I digress, but the leaps of faith required to believe these things are nothing compared to the astronomically large amount of faith it takes to believe in the creationists’ belief, requiring people to believe AND disregard many observations about the universe around us. It’s just ridiculous.
[quote]tom8658 wrote:
orion wrote:
Hey, it took us 30 pages to explain too him the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
It took 30 pages to explain it incorrectly?[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
orion wrote:
Hey, it took us 30 pages to explain too him the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
It took 30 pages to explain it incorrectly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis[/quote]
Starts about 2/3 of the way down.
[quote]anonym wrote:
orion wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
orion wrote:
Hey, it took us 30 pages to explain too him the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
It took 30 pages to explain it incorrectly?
Starts about 2/3 of the way down.[/quote]
Every creationist going through the Stahlgewitter of the PWI should at least get his terminological clock cleaned.
We live to serve.
You know, poking holes in the “suredness” of scientific theories does not, in and of itself, PROVE the alternative, which is the creationist view.
And, might I add, that this has mostly turned into a semantic debate.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
some stuff
First of all, let’s get our terminology straight.
Evolution is a theory, in that it is a set of principles which purports to explain certain physical phenomena. A theory is not required to be testable, merely to be explanatory, nor is a theory ever proven, though it can be discredited. In fact, it is quite easy to disprove a theory, as one contradictory claim will require revision of the entire model (model is often a synonym for theory).
A hypothesis, on the other hand, is a testable claim. A hypothesis can be predicated on a theory, such that proof of the hypothesis supports the theory. The hypothesis that mammals share a large portion of common genetic material is demonstrably true. The theory of evolution claims that all mammals should share common genetic material. Ergo, the truth of this hypothesis supports (=is evidence for) the theory of evolution…
OK, we have a big problem here, friend.
[i]"A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven’t tried that could be different.
Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it’s an accepted hypothesis. [/i]
You simply don’t have a grip on terminology so I daresay you might want to step out of the ring here, regroup and sashay back in when you get your ducks all lined up.
At best this suggests macroevolution barely qualifies as a hypothesis.[/quote]
You’re right, I messed up my terminology, I was thinking about statistics… not that a statistical hypothesis can be proven either, just tested and accepted or rejected.
My bad.
You’re still wrong about evolution being a hypothesis and not a theory, though. A theory can’t be tested either: a theory is just a hypothesis which has supporting evidence. In fact, any looney thing you can think up qualifies as a hypothesis. I can hypothesize that there is a tiny, invisible teapot that flits about in the asteroid belt and causes cancer with undetectable teapot radiation. However, evolution has made predictions, which have held up under observation. Ergo, evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis.
If you take what I wrote and plug in “prediction” for “hypothesis” in the second paragraph, it’s all consistent.
Nor does my mistake invalidate anything else I wrote in that post, since almost none of it was predicated on my incorrect definition of hypothesis.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
At best this suggests macroevolution barely, if at all, qualifies as a hypothesis. It can’t be tested. It is a speculative idea, nothing more.[/quote]
Which is exactly a hypothesis.
And since the hypothesis has help up under repeated testing, it is a theory.
The fact that I made a terminology mistake does not make your assertion correct, nor does it invalidate anything else I may have said which was not predicated on that mistake. …It’s like a microcosm of the whole debate in two posts…
"A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
Adaptation and speciation are evidence supporting evolution. They do not prove evolution. It doesn’t matter what you call it, neither a hypothesis nor a theory can ever be proven, and anyone who claims the contrary is wrong.
Likewise, anyone claiming that evolution is unquestionable or indisputable is also wrong, and I have never said otherwise.
I don’t know why you take issue with “unscientific”. It is a classification, not a judgement of worth. Did you even read my last post?