Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution isn;'t a proven fact, that's why it is called a theory. Prove what ? That abiogenesis has never been observed, replicated, and the alleged process is entirely unknown? That is fact. So. there is no scientific evidence, other than assumption, for abiogenesis. Therefore, evolution could not have started without a primordial creature to begin it. The whole house of cards falls down. That is why you run from the subject. You want me to de facto say it existed by saying macro evolution is a proven fact. Nope, neither are proven facts. Basic science. I can outrun you on these two topics, I do believe.

What makes you think that a theory cannot also be a fact? A theory explains facts. Surely you do know that gravity is a fact, don't you? The theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. There are no competing theories, and please note we are speaking of the word "theory" in the scientific sense. And I gave you an example of observed macroevolution. Why did you ignore it?

And no, evolution deals with life after it exists. It does not matter if it arose naturally through abiogenesis, was magically poofed into existence by a god, or if it was planted here by aliens. You are trying to refute an idea that you won't let yourself understand. That is a self defeating approach.

And you obviously do not even understand what scientific evidence is. I will give a simple test and then if you fail it explain why you are wrong:

Is the fossil "Lucy" scientific evidence for the theory of evolution?

 

[JustWondering]

new swines arrive all the time. Maybe you can save some souls with your unique evidence...

He knows he doesn't have any credible evidence to provide. If he did, why would he keep it to himself? Especially since he's already participating in the thread. Unless he's here to actually debate, why waste time reading his posts or responding to him? Its a waste of your time.

 

[shmogie]

What makes you think that a theory cannot also be a fact? A theory explains facts. Surely you do know that gravity is a fact, don't you? The theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. There are no competing theories, and please note we are speaking of the word "theory" in the scientific sense. And I gave you an example of observed macroevolution. Why did you ignore it?

And no, evolution deals with life after it exists. It does not matter if it arose naturally through abiogenesis, was magically poofed into existence by a god, or if it was planted here by aliens. You are trying to refute an idea that you won't let yourself understand. That is a self defeating approach.

And you obviously do not even understand what scientific evidence is. I will give a simple test and then if you fail it explain why you are wrong:

Is the fossil "Lucy" scientific evidence for the theory of evolution?

It is a skeleton of a creature that once was alive. I understand evolution as well as you. Why must you attack someone personally because they don´t agree with you ? What example of OBSERVED macro evolution did you give, I missed it, please repeat it.

A theory in science, as well as any other endeavor isn´t a fact. The theory of a steady state universe was the accepted one for a century or more. It was replaced with the theory of the big bang. If the steady state universe was a fact, no other possibility could ever arise.

Evolution is a theory, currently in vogue. It is not a fact. It is a theory based upon interpreting evidence in one manner that is based upon a self imposed restriction. All evidence can only be interpreted within the framework of a natural explanation, no other possible interpretation is allowed.

Consequently, only one interpretation can result. That isn´t science, thatś dogmatism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a skeleton of a creature that once was alive. I understand evolution as well as you. Why must you attack someone personally because they don´t agree with you ? What example of OBSERVED macro evolution did you give, I missed it, please repeat it.

That was a dodge, I asked a yes/no question. And no, you do not understand evolution as well as I do. If that was the case you would be lying and I do not think that you are lying. And where did I attack you personally?

As to your macroevolution question it was answered here:
Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

A theory in science, as well as any other endeavor isn´t a fact. The theory of a steady state universe was the accepted one for a century or more. It was replaced with the theory of the big bang. If the steady state universe was a fact, no other possibility could ever arise.

Something can be both a theory and a fact. I see that you dodged the theory of gravity as an example. I did not say that all theories are facts.

Evolution is a theory, currently in vogue. It is not a fact. It is a theory based upon interpreting evidence in one manner that is based upon a self imposed restriction. All evidence can only be interpreted within the framework of a natural explanation, no other possible interpretation is allowed.

Consequently, only one interpretation can result. That isn´t science, thatś dogmatism.

Other interpretations may be possible. The only problem is that I do not know of any competing ideas that exist. Competing concepts have all been refuted a long time ago. Refuting false ideas is not dogma. Please don't project religious flaws upon the sciences.

And the evidence for evolution is as strong if not stronger than the evidence for gravity. Why accept one and not the other?

ETA: Once again, is Lucy scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, yes or no? Please do not dodge such a straight forward question.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Careful what you wish for!

That is a fine point.

 

[David T]

That is a fine point.

I ended up with medusa when really a wood nymph is more my type....

 

[Cary Cook]

If your system of belief cannot stand up to scrutiny and if you strongly discourage your members from investigating all avenues there is something wrong. Cults come to mind. Christianity comes to mind. For example, North Korea has a suspect government, therefore it prevents its people from knowing more and seeing more. In case they rebel. The US has a more transparent and stable government. Democracy is healthy and people can think and see for themselves.
Christian forums prevent atheists from speaking out. Christians discourage transparancy and free investigation. They warn their members that satan can get a hold on them if they investigate too much. Atheist forums and ex Christian forums however value all knowledge.
I am therefore implying that Christianity exists by hiding truth from its followers. It indoctrinates and holds prisoner with threats of eternal punishment.
What is your opinion on this matter?

I agree with you about most Christian forums (but I know of one local exception).
Atheist forums are much less so, but they are still more like ideological band wagons than truth seeking forums. Street Epistemology has the best forum policy I'm aware of.

 

[shmogie]

That was a dodge, I asked a yes/no question. And no, you do not understand evolution as well as I do. If that was the case you would be lying and I do not think that you are lying. And where did I attack you personally?

As to your macroevolution question it was answered here:
Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?



Something can be both a theory and a fact. I see that you dodged the theory of gravity as an example. I did not say that all theories are facts.



Other interpretations may be possible. The only problem is that I do not know of any competing ideas that exist. Competing concepts have all been refuted a long time ago. Refuting false ideas is not dogma. Please don't project religious flaws upon the sciences.

And the evidence for evolution is as strong if not stronger than the evidence for gravity. Why accept one and not the other? Because tour statement is simply wrong.

ETA: Once again, is Lucy scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, yes or no? Please do not dodge such a straight forward question.

NO. You gave no example of OBSERVED evolution. Interesting that you have adopted the terms micro and macro evolution. No evolutionist I have ever come across has. In fact, most are downright hostile to the terms, since they are creationist terms invented by creation scientists.Only those who accept intelligent design or creation science, in my experience use, the terms,.

Methinks someone doesn't know what they are talking about, and that someone ain't me.

Quote me a specific incidence of macro evolution that has been OBSERVED.

 

[shmogie]

NO. You gave no example of OBSERVED evolution. Interesting that you have adopted the terms micro and macro evolution. No evolutionist I have ever come across has. In fact, most are downright hostile to the terms, since they are creationist terms used by creation scientists.Only those who accept intelligent design or creation science, in my experience use, the terms. This is because of the indoctrination of neo Darwinism. The neo Darwinists seek to say it is all just evolution, and because virtually all Christians accept micro evolution. The problem for macro evolutionists is that their pet theory is primarily grounded on the idea of genetic mutations above the family level. Genes at this level are very stable, and the volatility needed simply doesn't appear to be there.

Methinks someone doesn't know what they are talking about, and that someone ain't me.

Quote me a specific incidence of macro evolution that has been OBSERVED.

 

[Subduction Zone]

NO. You gave no example of OBSERVED evolution. Interesting that you have adopted the terms micro and macro evolution. No evolutionist I have ever come across has. In fact, most are downright hostile to the terms, since they are creationist terms invented by creation scientists.Only those who accept intelligent design or creation science, in my experience use, the terms,.

Methinks someone doesn't know what they are talking about, and that someone ain't me.

Quote me a specific incidence of macro evolution that has been OBSERVED.

Did you not understand that the example of ring species that I gave is an example of macroevolution in progress?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just an added note, I cannot link on the tablet that I am using right now, but you can look up for yourself "observed speciation events".

And you might want to look up what macroevolution is. I provided a link for that in my earlier post.

 

[shmogie]

Just an added note, I cannot link on the tablet that I am using right now, but you can look up for yourself "observed speciation events".

And you might want to look up what macroevolution is. I provided a link for that in my earlier post.

I know what macroevolution is. You quoted the original Russian definition of 1927. The ferinition has changed a few times since then.

 

[shmogie]

Did you not understand that the example of ring species that I gave is an example of macroevolution in progress?

Macro evolution does not begin with divergent species, it begins with divergent families.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Macro evolution does not begin with divergent species, it begins with divergent families.

Where did you get that idea from? Check the link that I supplied. I can supply others. Creationists almost always get the concept wrong. I warned you that you were probably making an error. Macroevolution is at the species level and above as defined by the person that coined the term.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know what macroevolution is. You quoted the original Russian definition of 1927. The ferinition has changed a few times since then.

Creationists cannot change the meaning of a word. Provide a link. Biologists today know, whether micro or macro it is all just evolution.

 

[shmogie]

Where did you get that idea from? Check the link that I supplied. I can supply others. Creationists almost always get the concept wrong. I warned you that you were probably making an error. Macroevolution is at the species level and above as defined by the person that coined the term.

Yep, he coined the term in in 1927. neo Darwinists use neither, other EVOLUTIONISTS have changed the meaning of the term at least twice. Words are words, just as the classification system is a bunch of words for placing life in some order. Creationists can do what they choose with words, and I suspect you never heard of the terms micro and macro evolution till I used them. You hurriedly googled the terms. A bird is a bird, a lizard is a lizard, a mammal is a mammal. Species is irrelevant, divergent species are irrelevant, macro evolution depends upon a familial change. You cannot cite an example of OBSERVED macro evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep, he coined the term in in 1927. neo Darwinists use neither, other EVOLUTIONISTS have changed the meaning of the term at least twice. Words are words, just as the classification system is a bunch of words for placing life in some order. Creationists can do what they choose with words, and I suspect you never heard of the terms micro and macro evolution till I used them. You hurriedly googled the terms. A bird is a bird, a lizard is a lizard, a mammal is a mammal. Species is irrelevant, divergent species are irrelevant, macro evolution depends upon a familial change. You cannot cite an example of OBSERVED macro evolution.

Wrong I can. Of course you have faulty definition of "observed". I can site other speciation events. We can observe evolution in the fossil record too.

By the way, why did you not find a valid source that agrees with you? Once again, I can find others that agree with me. But it is your turn now.

 

[Sunstone]

Atheist forums and ex Christian forums however value all knowledge.

Some atheist and ex-Christian forums are just as inhospitable to dissenting ideas as any religiously oriented forum. This forum is more open to divergent views than most, in my experience. But even we're not perfect.

 

[TruePathFinder]

Schmogie wikipedia is a decent source for informal debate
Read this please and take it to heart. You embarrass yourself and your religion.
Evolution as fact and theory

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[1]

Each of the words "evolution", "fact" and "theory" has several meanings in different contexts. Evolution means change over time, as in stellar evolution. In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time; it can also refer to explanatory theories (such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection) which explain the mechanisms of evolution. To a scientist, fact can describe a repeatable observation that all can agree on; it can refer to something that is so well established that nobody in a community disagrees with it; and it can also refer to the truth or falsity of a proposition. To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture (e.g., "it's only a theory"), but among scientists it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation". With this number of choices, people can often talk past each other, and meanings become the subject of linguistic analysis.

Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested. The scientific literature includes statements by evolutionary biologistsand philosophers of science demonstrating some of the different perspectives on evolution as fact and theory.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's all you really have to satisfy, isn't it ?

Quite, since I'm not so sure about any higher entity, and the rest of you can go yourselves. Only joking!