Jump to content


Photo

What Is The "scientific" Theory Of Evolution....?


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#101 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 February 2016 - 08:54 AM

...but I was asking about piasan's charge, not popoi. 

 

 

Yes, I know.

 

 

 Shall I conclude that your answer means he didn't even try?

 

 

Yes



#102 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 February 2016 - 12:28 PM

Yes, I know.

 

 

 

Yes

 

Gotcha. Or should I say, 'Got'im!'? ;)



#103 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 February 2016 - 10:42 AM

 

Say, did our resident professor come up with proof of his charge that you 'quote mined'? Did he even try? If so then give me the post # please. Thanks.

... I was asking about piasan's charge, not popoi. Where did piasan quote you making a quote-mined statement by proving with the full context of the article in question? Shall I conclude that your answer means he didn't even try? 

Yes

That is not true.

 
Documentation of your Gibbs quote mine dates back to at least last April in the Second Law of Thermodynamics discussion.   The below quote should provide a link to the post.

 

I'm pretty sure there were other places I documented this particular quote mine as well.

 

At the time of your complaint,  I saw no need to again document what had already been shown by direct quotes contradictory to your claim from the article itself.  Instead, I pointed out that the documentation was within a post or two of the one you quoted.

 

You also insisted that I file a formal complaint with list management.  Again, I remind you, I'm not some 19 year old recruit you can push around.  Nor am I some kind of errand boy whose job is to provide you with what you "want."   If you think there is a basis for a complaint, file it yourself.

 

Should you decide to discuss whether or not it was a quote mine, I suggest you take the matter to Mike W's "Quote Mine" thread which, I believe, was started by him as a result of your "demand" I document what I had already documented.  

 

For some reason, no creationist seemed willing to discuss if lifting a comment from the introduction of an experimental report while ignoring statements in the abstract preceding the intro; immediately following the quote in the introduction; in the body of the paper; and in the discussion of the conclusions is a quote mine.

 

There  was also a quote-mine from Einstein you used in the "One Way Speed of Light" discussion.



#104 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 February 2016 - 01:19 PM

 

 

Documentation of your Gibbs quote mine ...

 

 

 

:burp:

 

Yes, and Anna Nicole married for Love and Pol Pot was her florist.   We need some "COW BELL".  :kaffeetrinker:

 

 

IMHO all this Unsupported Blather is just a juvenile diversion employed to take attention away from your trainwreck science acumen, the least of which (Your Hypothesis :get_a_clue:)....which has been documented throughout this forum, ad nauseam.

 

If you (or anyone) need the "Links", just ask.

 

 

regards



#105 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,823 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 February 2016 - 01:49 PM

 

 

Piasan: Should you decide to discuss whether or not it was a quote mine, I suggest you take the matter to Mike W's "Quote Mine" thread which, I believe, was started by him as a result of your "demand" I document what I had already documented.  

 

Actually I had written that post out a number of weeks before You and Enoch had discussed quote-mining because sometimes on discussion boards I have noticed that quote-mining, if used as an accusation, can be a bit of a red-herring/generalization. So it triggered me to post the topic.

 

I agree there can be a valid accusation of quote-mining but I am also aware that it can also be used by a fair amount of evolutionists, to take away any focus from consequential, tacit admissions. So it can be used ambigiously.

 

What I'm saying is that if I go to a heavily evolutionist forum and I quote something of relevance and it is NOT a quote mine, there is still nevertheless, a 99% chance that I will be accused of quote-mining anyway. So my musings were more general, I don't know much about the dispute between you and Enoch to be honest, pertaining to any particular quote.

 

Can we never quote anything then? I imagine your answer would be, as an honest evolution, "yes you can" but I hope you can understand that if I went and quoted something at an evo-forum, the chances of the words, "quote-mine" being used by them, are so strong I would be willing to bet money that they would accuse me of it.



#106 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 February 2016 - 01:57 PM

IMHO all this Unsupported Blather is just a juvenile diversion employed to take attention away from your trainwreck science acumen, the least of which (Your Hypothesis :get_a_clue:)....which has been documented throughout this forum, ad nauseam.

Failure to address the actual quote mine noted.

 

IMHO, your posts consist of little more than insults (ad hominems, logical fallacy), well poisoning (logical fallacy), regurgiquotes and frequent quote mines that have no place in a civil discussion group.....  which have been documented throughout this forum ad nauseam.....

 

So I guess my opinion of you is only slightly lower than yours of me.



#107 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 February 2016 - 02:04 PM

Actually I had written that post out a number of weeks before You and Enoch had discussed quote-mining because sometimes on discussion boards I have noticed that quote-mining, if used as an accusation, can be a bit of a red-herring/generalization. So it triggered me to post the topic.

OK... the timing was coincidental.

 

This particular example is pretty cut-and-dried.  The quote lifted from the introduction of the research paper describing the results of an experiment was in direct opposition to:

1)  A statement made in the abstract.

2)  A statement immediately following the citation.

3)  A statement in the body of the paper describing that the reaction had taken place (which would be impossible if the Gibbs argument held true).

4)  A statement in the discussion at the end of the paper saying the "PERCEIVED" problem did not exist.

 

At some point, all of these disagreements with the contents of the paper and results of the experiment become a quote mine.

 

I agree there can be a valid accusation of quote-mining but I am also aware that it can also be used by a fair amount of evolutionists, to take away any focus from consequential, tacit admissions. So it can be used ambigiously.

There is no ambiguity here...

 

 

Can we never quote anything then? I imagine your answer would be, as an honest evolution, "yes you can" but I hope you can understand that if I went and quoted something at an evo-forum, the chances of the words, "quote-mine" being used by them, are so strong I would be willing to bet money that they would accuse me of it.

Of course you can.

 

However, when the quote is taken out of context of the paper as a whole, there are some serious issues with the integrity of the one producing the quote.



#108 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,823 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 February 2016 - 03:15 PM

I will let you an Enoch debate that issue. My interest in quote-mining is purely academic.



#109 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 February 2016 - 05:46 PM

I will let you an Enoch debate that issue. My interest in quote-mining is purely academic.

 

 

It was over before it began: If you get bored start here, it'll take less than 5 minutes:  http://evolutionfair...-22#entry119989

 

Enjoy



#110 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 28 March 2016 - 10:35 PM

So what was the scientific theory of evolution?



#111 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 11 April 2016 - 12:46 AM

If you don't mind watching a 1h movie, here is one that answers a lot of questions asked here:

 

 

I'll comment on this when I have time as well, so there no need to watch it yet if you don't feel like it.



#112 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 April 2016 - 06:38 AM

If you don't mind watching a 1h movie, here is one that answers a lot of questions asked here:



I'll comment on this when I have time as well, so there no need to watch it yet if you don't feel like it.


Thanks for the video, I'll try and have a look when I have access to an actual computer, using my phone here.

#113 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 April 2016 - 11:44 AM

If you don't mind watching a 1h movie, here is one that answers a lot of questions asked here:

 

 

I'll comment on this when I have time as well, so there no need to watch it yet if you don't feel like it.

 

Quotes from your Video....

 

 

"It's a national embarrassment (less than 40% of Americans "accept" evolution)...Imagine if you surveyed the technically advanced countries of the world and you found out that only 40% of Americans accepted the Germ Theory of Disease or the theory that matter was made up of atoms."
 
Non-Sequitur on Steroids.  What does the veracity of Germ Theory or Atomic Theory have to do with evolution, pray tell??
 

Maybe, the others are accepted because they're ACTUAL Scientific Theories, Jerry. i.e., they're DEFINED and have ACTUAL confirmed Scientific Hypotheses.

 

 

"Well here it is for something that's just as true as the theory of atoms and germs which is the theory of evolution".

 

 

 
What a nitwit. So Jerry, because Germ Theory and Atomic Theory are true...Phlogiston is therefore then TRUE. (ROTFLOL)
 
 
 
"So 1 in 6 believes the way Scientists do".
 
Can you define a Scientist?  Are you a Scientist Jerry? 
 
 
 
"Cosmological evolution".
 
We are told here @ EFF, there is no such thing.  
 
So you trying to double down Jerry??  2 Pseudo-Sciences = 1 Legitimate Science?
 
 
So Survey's/Polls and then the Dover Trial eh Jerry, with the headline: "Judge Rules Intelligent Design is 'NOT SCIENCE'. 
 
Very Compelling Jerry.  Did Judge Jones pull on his vast experience from his years as the Head of the PA State Liquor Control Board to render his Scientific decision??  And/or did he just copy and paste (Nearly Verbatim) the ACLU's "A Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law" Document?? ...Without CITATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
 
 
"There's a certain branch of people in this country that you cannot convince with evidence".

 

 

Yea, like evolutionists.
 

"evolution is probably the supreme achievement of the human intellect, even more so than Calculus."

 

:rotfl3:1000000--------> 

 
 
"I'll try and show some of the more GEE-WHIZZY stuff tonight".

 

 

Oh we can't wait.  Is "GEE-WHIZZY" a Technical Scientific Term Jerry?
 
 
"Even if you accept evolution I'd like you to know the reason why you should accept evolution."
 
Are you implying that some accept evolution without reason?   :gigglesmile:  
 
 
"First, there is no Absolute TRUTH in Science".

 

 

 
 Oh Really Jerry, how bout these...
 
a. Unless it is hindered "Specifically", in "Nature"....Heat Flows from Hot to Cold (Always!), Energy Concentrated to Dispersed (Always!), High Pressure to Low Pressure (Always!)
b. Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy matter/energy.
c. Vitamin C deficiency in Humans results in Scurvy.
d. Protein Secondary Structure is the result of Primary Structure and Hydrogen Bonding.
e. Insulin Deficiency in Type 1 Diabetics results in Keto-Acidosis.
f.  INFORMATION is ALWAYS sourced by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception!
g. Life ONLY comes from LIFE
h. ONLY Observation or "Knower of the Path Information" COLLAPSES the Wave Function.
i. The Laws of Physics and Chemistry contain no Symbolic Logic Functions.
j. Wrong Handed Stereoisomers DESTROY DNA/RNA/Protein Secondary Structure.
 
I could go on for MONTHS !!
 
 
This is Moronic...

"What do we mean by a Scientific Claim being True?" ...
 
An Assertion for which there is so much evidence that it would be perverse to deny it.

 

 

Can you point to the SCIENTIFIC PART Jerry?

 

Then....

 

"Scientific Theory:

 

Coherent group of propositions meant to explain facts about the world.   <----- this and the equivocations below are in -8 font on his screen 

 

Atomic Theory

Germ Theory of Disease

Theory of evolution

 

 

How bout these Jerry...

 

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine} 
http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine} 
http://www.fromquark...-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html

 

 

i.e., Jerry, Scientific Theories --- "EXPLAIN"....The HOW (Mechanism/Process).

 

 

And then The "Punch Line"...

 

So what is the "theory of evolution"? 

 

 

1. EVOLUTION happens (populations change over time).

 

2. EVOLUTION usually happens gradually (populations change over hundreds to thousands of years)

 

3. Speciation occurs: one species splits into 2 or more species.

 

4. All species share Common Ancestry.

 

5. Much of evolutionary change was caused by Natural Selection, which is the sole process producing adaptation (the appearance of Design)

 

 

:rotfl3:

 

So Scientific Theories --- "EXPLAIN"....The HOW (Mechanism/Process).  Let's evaluate the 5 "theories"  :laugh_point:  ....

 

1.  The Mechanism:  it "happens".  And what is "It" Jerry....?

 

2.  The Mechanism: it "happens gradually".  And what is "It" Jerry....?

 

3.  The Mechanism: it "occurs". 

 

4.  The Mechanism: it "shares".  

 

5.  The Mechanism: "Natural Selection".  Well Jerry...

 

Natural Selection...
 
Is a Contradiction in Terms.  To be able to "SELECT" you must have the ability to REASON; Sentience and Intelligence...is "Nature" Alive?? 
 
Natural Selection is a "Concept"; Non-Physical/Immaterial. "Concepts" aren't Mechanisms because the "concepts" can't Manipulate the Physical. 
It's Tantamount to claiming that the "Race for Space" (Concept) was the Mechanism for the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, or Freedom (Concept) developed the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.

William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOTHING….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200
 
"Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism."
Shermer, M., The Woodstock of Evolution (The World Summit on Evolution); Scientific American, 27 June 2005
http://www.scientifi...ck-of-evolutio/
 
 
In Summary,   :funny:10000000 ---->
 
It's well beyond certainty that Jerry would fail 5th Grade General Science.  He also needs to drop anchor in an 80 Level Basic Reasoning Course. 
 
 
Thanks for your attention.
 
 
ps. This is just a review of the first 13:00 minutes of the fiasco.  If I get bored, I'll tear apart the rest of his mess.  thumbsup.gif 

  • gilbo12345 likes this

#114 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 April 2016 - 02:19 PM

If you don't mind watching a 1h movie, here is one that answers a lot of questions asked here:

 

 

I'll comment on this when I have time as well, so there no need to watch it yet if you don't feel like it.

 

 

Continued...

 

 

 

"We're no more special than a squirrel is and I always think that to myself when I see them walking across harvard yard"

 

 

 

Perhaps the Squirrels are smarter than you Jerry. eh?

 

 

Many Many evolutionary "Predictions", here's a classic...

 

 

"If evolution results largely from Natural Selection then we should be able to find examples of selection operating on organisms in nature."

 

 

:gilligan: If burn marks on my Garage Wall result largely from Invisible Fire Breathing Dragons then we should be able to find some burn marks.  YEP, found some!

 

Jerry, Do you know the difference between "Scientific Predictions" and "Jimmy The Greek Predictions" ??

 

 

Scientific Predictions: have an "Independent Variable" as the Antecedent to the "Prediction" (The Consequent).

 

"Jimmy The Greek Predictions":  have no "Independent Variable", Ergo: they are of the Jeanne Dixon/Edgar Cayce/Nostradamus/Carnival Tent variety.

 

 

Jerry, have you seen this ??...

 

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014
 
 
Jerry, are you familiar with Logical Fallacies??  How does your statement compare to this...
 
Affirming The Consequent (Formal Fallacy)--- http://www.logicalfa...the-consequent/
 
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q. 

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Similarity/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.
 
Or
 
1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.
 
Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries, Jerry? 
 
 
 
"This is one of the most remarkable examples of an evolutionary prediction: Whales."

 

 

Errr, Jerry...have you heard of Dr. Philip Gingerich (paleontologist) Director of The Museum of Paleontology from the University of Michigan??

 

Well he's the guy who birthed the Whale Evolution Nonsense, ya know what he said about it?  HE MADE IT UP !!! ...

 

15:20 Mark...

 

 

 

 

Fossils and The Geologic Column:  "You don't see humans down here, you don't see Dinosuars up there".

 

 

Jerry, are you familiar with Denying The Antecedent (Fallacy)??  You know, the dirty little sister of Affirming the Consequent that you are VERY familiar with??

 

Denying The Antecedent:

 

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
 
If they are buried together (P) then they both existed together (Q)
They're not buried together (Not P).
Therefore, they didn't exist together. (Therefore, not Q).
 
Congrats you hit the Daily Double!!! :banana_afro:  Are you gonna attempt to celebrate the entire catalog of Logical Fallacies for us today?
 
 
My Word people.


#115 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 12 April 2016 - 01:05 AM

 

Non-Sequitur on Steroids.  What does the veracity of Germ Theory or Atomic Theory have to do with evolution, pray tell??

Maybe, the others are accepted because they're ACTUAL Scientific Theories, Jerry. i.e., they're DEFINED and have ACTUAL confirmed Scientific Hypotheses.

Your second statement shows you can actually answer your first. They're both theories accepted by the scientific community.

 

Can you define a Scientist?  Are you a Scientist Jerry? 

As used within this context:

Someone who investigates natural phenomenon and publishes the results in peer reviewed journals.

 

Very Compelling Jerry.  Did Judge Jones pull on his vast experience from his years as the Head of the PA State Liquor Control Board to render his Scientific decision??  And/or did he just copy and paste (Nearly Verbatim) the ACLU's "A Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law" Document?? ...Without CITATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was provided in illustration that people try to get intelligent design thought in schools and he was happy it wasn't done. So what?

 

Oh we can't wait.  Is "GEE-WHIZZY" a Technical Scientific Term Jerry?

:facepalm:

 

Are you implying that some accept evolution without reason?   

Yes, not everybody has the time to study the world and check the evidence for themselves.
 

 Oh Really Jerry, how bout these...

 
a. Unless it is hindered "Specifically", in "Nature"....Heat Flows from Hot to Cold (Always!), Energy Concentrated to Dispersed (Always!), High Pressure to Low Pressure (Always!)
b. Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy matter/energy.
c. Vitamin C deficiency in Humans results in Scurvy.
d. Protein Secondary Structure is the result of Primary Structure and Hydrogen Bonding.
e. Insulin Deficiency in Type 1 Diabetics results in Keto-Acidosis.
f.  INFORMATION is ALWAYS sourced by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception!
g. Life ONLY comes from LIFE
h. ONLY Observation or "Knower of the Path Information" COLLAPSES the Wave Function.
i. The Laws of Physics and Chemistry contain no Symbolic Logic Functions.
j. Wrong Handed Stereoisomers DESTROY DNA/RNA/Protein Secondary Structure.
 
I could go on for MONTHS !!
 
This is Moronic...

Indeed it is, he explain it perfectly, that even if we seem to be certain of some things, we are not 100% sure. Science is humble.

 
 

How bout these Jerry...

 

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine} 
http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine} 
http://www.fromquark...-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html

 

 

i.e., Jerry, Scientific Theories --- "EXPLAIN"....The HOW (Mechanism/Process).

non sequitur.

 

 

 

So what is the "theory of evolution"? 

 

 

1. EVOLUTION happens (populations change over time).

 

2. EVOLUTION usually happens gradually (populations change over hundreds to thousands of years)

 

3. Speciation occurs: one species splits into 2 or more species.

 

4. All species share Common Ancestry.

 

5. Much of evolutionary change was caused by Natural Selection, which is the sole process producing adaptation (the appearance of Design)

 

 

So Scientific Theories --- "EXPLAIN"....The HOW (Mechanism/Process).  Let's evaluate the 5 "theories"   :laugh_point:  ....

 

1.  The Mechanism:  it "happens".  And what is "It" Jerry....?

 

2.  The Mechanism: it "happens gradually".  And what is "It" Jerry....?

 

3.  The Mechanism: it "occurs". 

 

4.  The Mechanism: it "shares".  

 

5.  The Mechanism: "Natural Selection".  Well Jerry...

The theory is the combination of these. They all need to be tested and found correct.

1.&2. Population change over time (check it in what you quoted). 14:30

3. Speciation occurs. 15:30

4. Common ancestry: 18:20

5. Natural selection: 44:30 I don't feel like debating a 5th grader over terminology.

 

You second post doesn't contain anything worth replying to (imho) apart from the whales stuff, so I'll check your video before I reply.



#116 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 April 2016 - 10:07 AM

 

Your second statement shows you can actually answer your first. They're both theories accepted by the scientific community.

 

 

Well Atomic Theory and Germ Theory are Scientific Theories, they don't need to be "accepted" (subjective) or have a "consensus" (subjective)...they are validated EMPIRICALLY (Objective).

 

evolution is stapled incoherently to the group without warrant via Equivocation Fallacy with the word "theory". 

 

Who/what is the Scientific Community?  Post the Address....?

 

Are you saying the Materialist/Realist Community actually "accepts" Realism/Materialism ??  PROFOUND!! Absolutely Astonishing ! 

 

 

As used within this context:

Someone who investigates natural phenomenon and publishes the results in peer reviewed journals.

 

 

A Scientist is someone who follows the disciplines Method, The Scientific Method.  In any and all CONTEXTS. 

 

 

This was provided in illustration that people try to get intelligent design thought in schools and he was happy it wasn't done. So what?

 

 

He was clearly using it as some mind numbing Pseudo-Justification for portraying Creationists as Science-Deniers (Like his ENTIRE Presentation was portraying) all the while Hammering the c4 Fire Scientifically and Logically as I illustrated.   
 
 
 
:facepalm:

 

 

 More like "Face-Plant".
 
 
Yes, not everybody has the time to study the world and check the evidence for themselves.

 

 
So you're advocating belief without evidence ?  Welcome to "Religion"!  
 
 
Science is humble.

 

 
Science isn't: humble, prideful, angry, sad, joyful, embarrassed, ad nauseam ; because to display these attributes you have to be Conscious --- Sentient/Intelligent.... ALIVE; Ergo...Reification Fallacy.
 

 
Enoch 2021:
 
 A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine} 

http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine} 
http://www.fromquark...-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html

 

i.e., Jerry, Scientific Theories --- "EXPLAIN"....The HOW (Mechanism/Process). 

 
 
 
Fjuri: non sequitur.

 

 
:get_a_clue: This is Non-Sequitur as Hydrogen is Non-Sequitur to Water. 
 
 

The theory is the combination of these. They all need to be tested and found correct.

1.&2. Population change over time (check it in what you quoted). 14:30

3. Speciation occurs. 15:30

4. Common ancestry: 18:20

5. Natural selection: 44:30 

 

 

There's nothing to TEST. (duh)

 

Thanks for repeating and adding the "Time-Marks".  Its tantamount to...

 

Enoch 2021: "Fjuri your video and it's spokesperson is moronic"

 

Fjuri: "The video and spokesperson is moronic. 00:01".

 
 
I don't feel like debating a 5th grader over terminology.

 

 
I'm sure Jerry feels the same way about you.
 
 
You second post doesn't contain anything worth replying to (imho) apart from the whales stuff, so I'll check your video before I reply.

 

 

So an Ipse Dixit "Hand-Wave" dismissal, eh?  

 

Never seen that before  :rolleyes:

 

 

regards


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#117 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 13 April 2016 - 01:17 AM

Because I posted the video, I felt the need to reply earlier. Even if it was you. I no longer feel the need.

 

Have fun.



#118 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 April 2016 - 09:32 AM

Because I posted the video, I felt the need to reply earlier. Even if it was you. I no longer feel the need.

 

Have fun.

 

oh brother.  Translation....

 

20150714.jpg

 

 

Thanks.  pssst, we already knew   :rolleyes:






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users