Intelligent design, my version.

[Lyndon]

Nonsense, you haven't even proven evolution exists as more than a theory.

 

[outhouse]

Nonsense, you haven't even proven evolution exists as more than a theory.

Simply not true.

It is fact and scientific theory.

Evolution is taught in every credible university around the world as fact, because it is.

Maybe you should look up the AIP statement, nah, I will do it for you.


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Nonsense, you haven't even proven evolution exists as more than a theory.

What is "more than a theory'? What exactly would be the next step? Super theory ?

 

[Skwim]

What is "more than a theory'? What exactly would be the next step? Super theory ?

Fact. Evolution is considered to be a fact. That Lyndon's remains unsatisfied with its proof is immaterial.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nonsense, you haven't even proven evolution exists as more than a theory.

In science when they call something a theory, it's well supported with evidence and research. In common vernacular, a theory is a guess, but in science it's not.

 

[outhouse]

What is "more than a theory'? What exactly would be the next step? Super theory ?

Hilarious!!!!!!!

Weez dun turned diz puppy inta da supa teary!!!!

 

[Lyndon]

Theory means speculative explanation of phenomenon, there are good theories, and totally wacked theories, they are still called theory, no need for a theory to be supported by any evidence, though the better ones are.

 

[Bunyip]

Nonsense, you haven't even proven evolution exists as more than a theory.

There is nothing above theory.

 

[Lyndon]

We don't have a lot of actual scientists contributing here, do we???

 

[Bunyip]

We don't have a lot of actual scientists contributing here, do we???

What is above theory in science Lindon? Evolution is a fact, explained by the theory - what is confusing you there?

 

[Sapiens]

Nonsense, you haven't even proven evolution exists as more than a theory.

In science there is nothing greater than a theory, haven't we explained this to you before? A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.

We don't have a lot of actual scientists contributing here, do we???

I'm one. But you don't need to be a scientist to use google.

 

[Ouroboros]

Theory means speculative explanation of phenomenon, there are good theories, and totally wacked theories, they are still called theory, no need for a theory to be supported by any evidence, though the better ones are.

Again, in science, the word "theory" is used different than in the colloquial use. When a scientist works on a scientific theory, it's done so with effort to find evidence and support for that theory.

Here's the definition from Wikipedia for "Scientific Theory":

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.[3][4]

 

[Ouroboros]

We don't have a lot of actual scientists contributing here, do we???

I have a degree in natural science but I didn't go into the field of research. I have taken a lot of scientific classes and labs. Exactly what kind of person do you need to tell you the definition of the word "Scientific Theory"? You can't take the definition from Wiki, or people with science degrees, but you have to have the Einstein or Newton to tell you? By the way, we do have actual scientists in our midst. Sapiens is one and there are a few others. Aren't they good enough either? Who do you really need? The president of USA? Look the phrase up using Google and learn something. Don't search for "Theory" but for "Scientific Theory" because there's a different between just "Theory" and "Scientific Theory." And that's because, again, that the word "Theory" was incorporated a long time ago into science for the models that were results from the research. Research leads to results, which leads to models of how it works, and those models are called "Scientific Theories."

 

[Midnight Rain]

Theory means speculative explanation of phenomenon, there are good theories, and totally wacked theories, they are still called theory, no need for a theory to be supported by any evidence, though the better ones are.

We don't have a lot of actual scientists contributing here, do we???

I am actually a Laboratory Scientist yes. Its a BA degree and I'm currently working on my masters in Chemistry.

 

[outhouse]

no need for a theory to be supported by any evidence,

Sorry not accurate.



Not true.

A scientific theory, which evolution is, FACTUALLY has a different definition.

 

[gnostic]

Theory means speculative explanation of phenomenon, there are good theories, and totally wacked theories, they are still called theory, no need for a theory to be supported by any evidence, though the better ones are.

This is why I am so frustrated by some Christian creationists, who attempt to debate something they clearly don't understand. They always ending up sounding - ignorant.

If you truly want to debate "science" at the very least, you should at least understand what "theory" BY THEIR science definition and not by colloquial context.

SCIENTIFIC Theory is not "speculative" explanation, because SCIENTIFIC Theory is an explanation that are supported by evidences or through tests (or in the special cases of theoretical science, supported by mathematical models or mathematical proof, like M-theory or Superstring theory, but we are talking about evolution and evolution is not theoretical biology, because evolution has been repeatedly tested to be true, and there are far more evidences than the theory for gravity).

You are confusing SCIENTIFIC Theory with hypothesis.

Hypothesis, is like theory, in which offer explanation and make predictions, but the difference being that hypothesis is untested or unsupported by evidences YET, while SCIENTIFIC Theory is well-tested or it is supported BY EVIDENCES.

Hypothesis is the one that it is speculative, because the scientist is trying to formulate new or alternative explanation for a phenomena. Until the hypothesis can be verified by evidences or is successful after repeated testing, the hypothesis remain "speculative".

If the hypothesis lack evidences or it failed in all testing (including those ones by peer review), then this hypothesis is refuted and rejected by it branch or field of science.

A successful hypothesis might become a SCIENTIFIC Theory.

I wrote "might", because, someone else (another scientist(s)) might have formulated a better alternative hypothesis.

A SCIENTIFIC Theory often included a number of well-supported or well-tested hypotheses.

Evolution is one of those theories. Evolution included several different theories, not just Natural Selection; other mechanisms were developed in the 20th century, like Mutation, or Gene Flow, or Genetic Drift. Darwin's natural selection has been refined, because the theory of mutation doesn't debunk natural selection, but improve our knowledge on evolution, particularly that of natural selection.

What you need to understand is that SCIENTIFIC Theory is that it is explanation about fact. And FACT come from being able to obtained verifiable evidences or through rigorous and successful tests.

And any theory that are supported by evidences and tests, the theory is not speculative.

Evolution is fact, and it's theory is the explanation to this fact.

My problem is how many times we have to explain to you about "theory" and "fact", before YOU BL@@DY GET IT???!!!

 

[BUTSeriously]

Multiverse, ekpyrotic, m-branes, 4D collapsing star, many others. They all are based on time outside of our time.

If cause&effect are something natural, was it created by God? Did God cause the "cause&effect" to come into existence before "cause" existed? It creates the infamous recursive definition, or infinite regression in more popular terms.


Then we should have all other 300 creation stories mentioned as well. That would fit for its own class... wait, it could be called: Comparative Religion. I think I've seen that class around...


Yeah. Life kind.

MV, Parallel Universes, etc are contradictions of this finite universe. Finite means absolutely and only finite, not partially or conditional to one's preference. If components of this universe existed before this universe or elsewhere from this universe - it means this universe is not finite. So if this is acknowledged and Genesis is confronted by its contextual position, there is no alternative to a universe maker as the only cause factor. The process of elimination says so. Thanks

 

[BUTSeriously]

Multiverse, ekpyrotic, m-branes, 4D collapsing star, many others. They all are based on time outside of our time.

If cause&effect are something natural, was it created by God? Did God cause the "cause&effect" to come into existence before "cause" existed? It creates the infamous recursive definition, or infinite regression in more popular terms.


Then we should have all other 300 creation stories mentioned as well. That would fit for its own class... wait, it could be called: Comparative Religion. I think I've seen that class around...


Yeah. Life kind.

Yes, cause & effect had to be a program that was caused, giving inherent attributes to components that react to certain actions. If this universe is finite, it means there was no cause & effect before this universe existed. The cause & effect premise is not random or pervasive: we do not become effected by all actions but only those that we are wired up to respond to.

 

[BUTSeriously]

Zoroastrian and the Sumerian creation stories have similar creation stories. They're just as old, if not older. Sumer must be older than the Jewish tradition simply because Ur, where Abram came from, was supposedly Sumerian. Where did he get his story from you wonder?


It has to be re-evaluated to fit the Bible? Uhm... That's the wrong approach. Science works from natural observations, not Biblical assumptions (as the anti-scientists do).


Nah. There were others. Actually, it seems like all societies of any size had their own creation myths with some kind of "beginning".

Genesis is correct of a male/female duality applying with the first emergence of a life from. Otherwise, how can a female produce either gender - if she never inherited a dual one from the first source?

This is perhaps the first recorded scientific equation: "A seed shall follow its own kind". Even to think in such terms at such an ancient times appears a feat. I find that Genesis has the first record of species as well, listed in their correct protocols - there is real science here, and one should not be misled by the simple sounding text. Can anyone deny that Monotheism [God is One] was a bold leap in the ancient multi-deity and divine king realm?

 

[Ouroboros]

MV, Parallel Universes, etc are contradictions of this finite universe.

If it is finite.

Finite means absolutely and only finite, not partially or conditional to one's preference. If components of this universe existed before this universe or elsewhere from this universe - it means this universe is not finite.

Correct.

So if this is acknowledged and Genesis is confronted by its contextual position, there is no alternative to a universe maker as the only cause factor. The process of elimination says so. Thanks

No. It doesn't mean either way.