God gave us mind to know Him,or deny Him?

[Valjean]

I believe in evolution but not that we evolved from lower life forms. Man was always man.

By "lower" I'm assuming you're referring to man's enlarged prefrontal cortex. How this makes us "higher" anatomically or physiologically, I've no idea.
So where did this immutable "man" come from? We weren't here even five million years ago, -- though there were certainly a lot of other animals running around. Were we suddenly, magically poofed into existence at some recent point?

We believe in evolution within the same kingdoms. For example animals can evolve within the animal kingdom, the mineral and vegetable kingdoms likewise and the human kingdom within the human kingdom but no cross migration

There is no mineral kingdom. You don't seem to understand taxonomy. And if you say evolution can occur within the animal kingdom, you're acknowledging the possibility of a flatworm (Animalia) evolving into a human (Animalia)

Marco-evolution never happened and will not happaned.

And yet, as Kirran pointed out, it has happened, and within an observable, human timescale, both in the lab and in Nature.

Call it even "miracle of evolution", that will not change anything the reality that's it remain "theory"

Godobeyer, you're misusing the word "theory."
In science, theory does not mean speculation or conjecture, as it does in common speech. A theory is not an incomplete fact.
In science, a theory is as robust a conclusion as is possible, and a "fact" is a theory with overwhelming empirical support.

I've sent you several links to articles discussing facts and theories, yet you continue to misuse the terms.

 

[Godobeyer]

By "lower" I'm assuming you're referring to man's enlarged prefrontal cortex. How this makes us "higher" anatomically or physiologically, I've no idea.
So where did this immutable "man" come from? We weren't here even five million years ago, -- though there were certainly a lot of other animals running around. Were we suddenly, magically poofed into existence at some recent point?
There is no mineral kingdom. You don't seem to understand taxonomy. And if you say evolution can occur within the animal kingdom, you're acknowledging the possibility of a flatworm (Animalia) evolving into a human (Animalia)
And yet, as Kirran pointed out, it has happened, and within an observable, human timescale, both in the lab and in Nature

I do believe it's sometimes about different view through same mirror.

First of all we are discuss something complex designed "life and species", some people deny this fact.

Claiming macroevolution of every species ,which lead us to single cell,I don't believe in, it's just theory.because something complex could not appears to existance without designer.

.

Godobeyer, you're misusing the word "theory."
In science, theory does not mean speculation or conjecture, as it does in common speech. A theory is not an incomplete fact.
In science, a theory is as robust a conclusion as is possible, and a "fact" is a theory with overwhelming empirical support.

I've sent you several links to articles discussing facts and theories, yet you continue to misuse the terms.

In marcoevolution or origin of life.
It's fraud of words,to name a theory a fact.

 

[LuisDantas]

Without reading a page you've already condemned it?

You are telling me outright that it deserves no better, so yes.

 

[Valjean]

Claiming macroevolution of every species ,which lead us to single cell,I don't believe in, it's just theory.because something complex could not appears to existance without designer.

But it could -- and does. Repeated, simple steps can yield huge complexity, and the ToE outlines the simple mechanisms by which these changes occur and accumulate.

The Mandelbrot set, for example,is a relatively simple set of mathematical equations that can produce infinite complexity

It's fraud of words,to name a theory a fact.

You're doing it again.
Please reread my last post.

 

[Kirran]

What is a scientific theory, Godobeyer?

 

[loverofhumanity]

By "lower" I'm assuming you're referring to man's enlarged prefrontal cortex. How this makes us "higher" anatomically or physiologically, I've no idea.
So where did this immutable "man" come from? We weren't here even five million years ago, -- though there were certainly a lot of other animals running around. Were we suddenly, magically poofed into existence at some recent point?
There is no mineral kingdom. You don't seem to understand taxonomy. And if you say evolution can occur within the animal kingdom, you're acknowledging the possibility of a flatworm (Animalia) evolving into a human (Animalia)
And yet, as Kirran pointed out, it has happened, and within an observable, human timescale, both in the lab and in Nature.
Godobeyer, you're misusing the word "theory."
In science, theory does not mean speculation or conjecture, as it does in common speech. A theory is not an incomplete fact.
In science, a theory is as robust a conclusion as is possible, and a "fact" is a theory with overwhelming empirical support.

I've sent you several links to articles discussing facts and theories, yet you continue to misuse the terms.

Science still doesn't know everything so to make strong claims one way or another is premature unless our knowledge comes from God which I am claiming it does. I don't know if you believe in a God but I do. And He sends His Prophets to earth from time to time and recently He sent Baha'u'llah and He has informed us that we are not descended from apes or any other animal life form but had our own evolutionary path.

You may dispute this but I don't dispute knowledge that comes from an All Knowing God Who knows about these things as He is the Creator of life.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You are telling me outright that it deserves no better, so yes.

Ok if you say so.

But here is an excerpt anyway.


"Darwin's dismissal of convergence is essentially stating his feeling that convergences would be too incredible to be true. However, the evidence for it was there all along. If the beaks of finches adapt over many generations to their food source, naturally selecting either short fat beaks or long narrow beaks, then the same selective pressure would change the short beaks back into long beaks when the food source changes. The same selective pressure would also form similar beaks in unrelated species. This should be rightly regarded as a kind of convergence.

This microevolutionary convergence is as observable as is the divergence of beaks. However, in the case of divergence, the small-scale examples have been assumed to be the rule for the macroevolution of large-scale changes, even though macroevolution is hardly observable. Convergence from unique starting points has never been given such a generous presumption, even though the established small-scale examples of convergence (heart, brain, blood, eyes) are widespread.

In fact an extensive study of the Galapagos finches between 1973 and 2003 found that,
A combination of introgressive hybridization and selection jointly provide the best explanation of convergence in morphology and genetic constitution under the changed ecological conditions following a major El Niño event in 1983. The study illustrates how species without postmating barriers to gene exchange can alternate between convergence and divergence when environmental conditions oscillate."

 

[Godobeyer]

What is a scientific theory, Godobeyer?

Which is different than scientific fact.

I will make an exemple :
This is scientific fact.
1+1=2

Guessing X and F is the theory.
x + f = 54569847

 

[Valjean]

Science still doesn't know everything so to make strong claims one way or another is premature unless our knowledge comes from God which I am claiming it does. I don't know if you believe in a God but I do. And He sends His Prophets to earth from time to time and recently He sent Baha'u'llah and He has informed us that we are not descended from apes or any other animal life form but had our own evolutionary path.

You may dispute this but I don't dispute knowledge that comes from an All Knowing God Who knows about these things as He is the Creator of life.

"Premature?" What claims are you hearing that are premature, LoH? All scientific claims are provisional, nothing is ever proved. If we wait till they're mature, whatever that means, we'll be waiting forever.

But what we claim to know is pretty robust: germs cause disease, Earth revolves around the Sun, water consists of hydrogen + oxygen, animals change form over time.

What does "our own evolutionary path" mean? How does this differ from the path of a porcupine or oak tree?

How does "knowledge that come from God" differ from knowledge that comes from observation and testing? Every religion claims different knowledge from God, and none of it is testable -- which may be why there are so many differing claims.

Didn't Baha'u'llah say that if there's a discrepancy between religion and science, we should defer to science?

 

[Kirran]

Which is different than scientific fact.

I will make an exemple :
This is scientific fact.
1+1=2

Guessing X and F is the theory.
x + f = 54569847

OK, then here is the root of much of the misunderstanding in these discussions. The word you're looking for there is hypothesis. Not theory.

In science, theory means a body of well-supported facts which explain something about the natural world. So the theory of evolution isn't actually a hypothesis that there is this thing called evolution, the theory of evolution is the body of facts which act to explain evolution, which has already been accepted for a theory around it to exist.

 

[Valjean]

Which is different than scientific fact.

I will make an exemple :
This is scientific fact.
1+1=2

Guessing X and F is the theory.
x + f = 54569847

I thought we were talking about scientific facts and proofs? Mathematics is very different. You present a false equivalency.
Maths has axioms and proofs. Science does not.

I still suspect that you don't understand what a scientific theory is.

 

[Godobeyer]

I thought we were talking about scientific facts and proofs? Mathematics is very different. You present a false equivalency.
Maths has axioms and proofs. Science does not.

I still suspect that you don't understand what a scientific theory is.

I just post this in other thread :
Theory =/ fact.

I think there is much argumentative about the meaning theory.

This definition of theory in general. :

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.

That's Western definition from wiki.,

Arabic one definition of theory:
It's opinions try to explain the reality of science or hypotheses , or try to find a solution between the person and subject/reason/cause...etc

 

[Kirran]

I just post this in other thread :
Theory =/ fact.

I think there is much argumentative about the meaning theory.

This definition of theory in general. :

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.

That's Western definition from wiki.,

Arabic one definition of theory:
It's opinions try to explain the reality of science or hypotheses , or try to find a solution between the person and subject/reason/cause...etc

That Western definition is not the scientific definition, but the colloquial definition.

 

[Godobeyer]

That Western definition is not the scientific definition, but the colloquial definition.

That's wiki english definition ,which represent West,Arabic one is close to it.

 

[Kirran]

That's wiki english definition ,which represent West,Arabic one is close to it.

Yes but it's not the scientific definition, Godobeyer.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ok if you say so.

But here is an excerpt anyway.


"Darwin's dismissal of convergence is essentially stating his feeling that convergences would be too incredible to be true. However, the evidence for it was there all along. If the beaks of finches adapt over many generations to their food source, naturally selecting either short fat beaks or long narrow beaks, then the same selective pressure would change the short beaks back into long beaks when the food source changes. The same selective pressure would also form similar beaks in unrelated species. This should be rightly regarded as a kind of convergence.

This microevolutionary convergence is as observable as is the divergence of beaks. However, in the case of divergence, the small-scale examples have been assumed to be the rule for the macroevolution of large-scale changes, even though macroevolution is hardly observable. Convergence from unique starting points has never been given such a generous presumption, even though the established small-scale examples of convergence (heart, brain, blood, eyes) are widespread.

In fact an extensive study of the Galapagos finches between 1973 and 2003 found that,
A combination of introgressive hybridization and selection jointly provide the best explanation of convergence in morphology and genetic constitution under the changed ecological conditions following a major El Niño event in 1983. The study illustrates how species without postmating barriers to gene exchange can alternate between convergence and divergence when environmental conditions oscillate."

As creationist texts go, this is one of the best I have seen.

It is still mistaken and misleading in claiming that there is such a thing as a "macroevolution" that has been "assumed to be the rule" despite being "hardly observable".

The implication is that there is fair doubt on whether speciation (what it wants to call macroevolution) happens. And that is not at all true.

 

[Godobeyer]

Yes but it's not the scientific definition, Godobeyer.

Ah except if there is scientific definition of "lie" too .

 

[Kirran]

Ah except if there is scientific definition of "lie" too .

Why are you refusing to listen man? There's a different definition for theory for different usages. Please don't call me a liar, I'm only explaining the meaning of these words to you.

 

[Valjean]

That's wiki english definition ,which represent West,Arabic one is close to it.

Godobeyer, you're not hearing what we're saying. A "theory" and a "Scientific Theory" are two different things, just like "congress" and "sexual congress," they should not be mixed up.

 

[Godobeyer]

Why are you refusing to listen man? There's a different definition for theory for different usages. Please don't call me a liar, I'm only explaining the meaning of these words to you.

I don't call you lair.

I find different definitions about theory of evolution or scientific theory.

I find this interesting defintion of theory of evolution :

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

This is what I agree with , fact in present, theory of past.