No such thing as "evolutionists"

[rlasater]

If the evolution theory is just that a theory and a theory is a formal idea or set of ideas that is inteded to explain something, than why do people accept that as a fact like gravity.

 

[Vile Atheist]

If the evolution theory is just that a theory and a theory is a formal idea or set of ideas that is inteded to explain something, than why do people accept that as a fact like gravity.

There is a difference between the colloquial usage of the word "theory" and a scientific "theory". There is also a difference between the "fact" of evolution and the "theory" of evolution.

A theory in the colloquial sense means a guess, a hypothesis, not really supported by evidence. In the scientific sense, it is a rigorously tested and well-evidenced idea that makes predictions and those predictions have been made by evolution and have been supported by more evidence.

The "fact" of evolution is that life does evolve. The "theory" of evolution is the explanation of HOW life evolves. There is a difference.

 

[rlasater]

Since it has been tested and well evidenced than wouldnt it become a law like gravity. I am more of a linguist than a scientist but a law or fact denotes an absolute and neither of those words are connected to evolution, other than people saying it is.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Since it has been tested and well evidenced than wouldnt it become a law like gravity. I am more of a linguist than a scientist but a law or fact denotes an absolute and neither of those words are connected to evolution, other than people saying it is.

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method

Rather than give you a long-winded explanation (as I'm prone to do), this site gives a concise and clear distinction between a scientific hypothesis, theory, and law.

 

[Magic Man]

Since it has been tested and well evidenced than wouldnt it become a law like gravity. I am more of a linguist than a scientist but a law or fact denotes an absolute and neither of those words are connected to evolution, other than people saying it is.

You're confusing terms. A scientific theory is basically an explanation of many observed facts. Theories and laws in science are completely different things. It's not like if something is just an idea, it's a theory, and when it gets enough evidence it becomes more sure and becomes a law.

In fact, I'm going to make it even easier for you. I'll post the info from Contentius's link, so that you can read it right here.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]scientific [COLOR=blue ! important]discovery[/color][/color][/color], because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]conservation[/color][/color] of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

...

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.


In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]scientific [COLOR=blue ! important]community[/color][/color][/color] as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Theory [COLOR=blue ! important]of [/color][COLOR=blue ! important]Relativity[/color][/color][/color], in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since it has been tested and well evidenced than wouldnt it become a law like gravity. I am more of a linguist than a scientist but a law or fact denotes an absolute and neither of those words are connected to evolution, other than people saying it is.

In science, a "law" is an absolute, certain relationship, but for an ideal (i.e. not strictly real) class of thing.

For instance, the ideal gas law is absolutely true for every ideal gas... but no real-world gas is exactly ideal. Newton's laws of motion are exactly correct in the ideal system that Newton theorized, but in the real world, every object is subject to things like Brownian motion and relativistic effects that aren't accounted for in Newtonian physics.

Basically, a law is a model of how something works that might not be exactly perfect, but is close enough that it's useful in practical terms.

And BTW: if it's laws you want, evolution has them, too. For instance, Mendel's First and Second Laws.

 

[rlasater]

Thank you for the explanations I am way out of my league when it comes to science.

 

[Willamena]

If the evolution theory is just that a theory and a theory is a formal idea or set of ideas that is inteded to explain something, than why do people accept that as a fact like gravity.

Because "gravity" is an idea or a set of ideas that is intended to explain something (namely, that things fall down).

 

[fantome profane]

Thank you for the explanations I am way out of my league when it comes to science.

I hope you don’t intend to give up. These concepts may be foreign to you right now, but they are not that hard to understand. And it is so worth the effort. A basic scientific literacy is so important in understanding the world around us. Science is truly wonderful. You will never regret it if you spend some effort trying to understand more of it.

 

[rlasater]

"If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions?" Scott Adams
I do not intend to quit but i will make sure my questions are somewhat intelligent. You are right science is an amazing study and i mean to learn as much as i can.

 

[Autodidact]

In another forum frequented by some very smart sciencey types, and regular old ignorant types like myself, I started a thread specifically to ask dumb science questions and get only answers and no mocking or argument. It was popular. Would we benefit from one such here?

 

[footprints]

How about, as it is overwhelmingly apparent that creationists have no clue what evolution really is and what it entails, and they are all debating the wrong dang thing, "Abiogenesis vs. Creation". They are always talking about creation being how life got here and all that yet seem to want to take on evolution, a subject they seem to want to know absolutely nothing about and refuse to see that evolution has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of life and the "how" life came about.

Why not take on the theories and hypotheses concerning abiogenesis and leave evolution alone? There is not, and has never been, a claim within the Theory of Evolution about the start of life, just the progression of life. When creationists can pull their heads out of their rears long enough to realize that fact then perhaps they can take on abiogenesis. Yet another reason to consider creationists irrational. They don't even know what they are arguing against.

Draka, in nature, if evolution is ever to be moved from it's high probability state, we need to find answers. Evolution didn't just start with earth, earth lifeforms and mankind, we have followed an evolutionary line. The universe does not revolve around Earth, nor even mankind. Evolution had to have come from something, which would be part and parcel of another evolution cycle, Big Bang/abiogenesis is one way. To not include all cycles in an evolution cycle is like asking people to believe in a fairytale, let us all pretend evolution starts here and deny everything which has come before it as if it doesn't exist. How the evolution of life was started on earth is very vital to how evolution works and pans out. Abiogeneis gave many answers to science as it pertains to the theory of evolution. If you removed Chemistry from the theory of evolution you wouldn't have a theory at all.

Some people like to look at the small picture of evolution cycles, ie The theory of Evolution, and others like to look at the big picture, ie the evolution cycle of the Universe as a whole.

Personally I believe the theory of evolution is incorrectly named.

 

[Gunfingers]

In another forum frequented by some very smart sciencey types, and regular old ignorant types like myself, I started a thread specifically to ask dumb science questions and get only answers and no mocking or argument. It was popular. Would we benefit from one such here?

Can we start another thread with a pool of how many posts it'll take for that thread to turn into mocking and arguing? I'm betting not long.

 

[fantome profane]

In another forum frequented by some very smart sciencey types, and regular old ignorant types like myself, I started a thread specifically to ask dumb science questions and get only answers and no mocking or argument. It was popular. Would we benefit from one such here?

I think it is a good idea and I think it will work. But you should also indicate that the questions asked must be honest questions. The questions can be as dumb as they need to be, but the person asking the question must be honestly looking for an answer and willing to listen. Those trying to give the answers must honestly be trying to help. No mocking answers and no rhetorical questions.

 

[rlasater]

How about, as it is overwhelmingly apparent that creationists have no clue what evolution really is and what it entails, and they are all debating the wrong dang thing, "Abiogenesis vs. Creation". They are always talking about creation being how life got here and all that yet seem to want to take on evolution, a subject they seem to want to know absolutely nothing about and refuse to see that evolution has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of life and the "how" life came about.

Why not take on the theories and hypotheses concerning abiogenesis and leave evolution alone? There is not, and has never been, a claim within the Theory of Evolution about the start of life, just the progression of life. When creationists can pull their heads out of their rears long enough to realize that fact then perhaps they can take on abiogenesis. Yet another reason to consider creationists irrational. They don't even know what they are arguing against.

Creationists irrational? Interesting generalization there! I would tend to think that a creationist is arguing the point of a process in which we got to where we are today. i.e. the seven days of creation . . . a process. Is that not what evolution is? A process in which some believe we got to where we are today?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Creationists irrational? Interesting generalization there! I would tend to think that a creationist is arguing the point of a process in which we got to where we are today. i.e. the seven days of creation . . . a process. Is that not what evolution is? A process in which some believe we got to where we are today?

At risk of speaking for Draka, I think what she means to say is that the precepts of Creationism are irrational because they contradict virtually every field of science.

 

[Autodidact]

Creationists irrational? Interesting generalization there! I would tend to think that a creationist is arguing the point of a process in which we got to where we are today. i.e. the seven days of creation . . . a process. Is that not what evolution is? A process in which some believe we got to where we are today?

Yes, but the first one (at least literal Genesis six-day creation) is utterly disproved by the evidence, while the other is strongly supported by the evidence. That's the key distinction.

 

[Magic Man]

Draka, in nature, if evolution is ever to be moved from it's high probability state, we need to find answers. Evolution didn't just start with earth, earth lifeforms and mankind, we have followed an evolutionary line. The universe does not revolve around Earth, nor even mankind. Evolution had to have come from something, which would be part and parcel of another evolution cycle, Big Bang/abiogenesis is one way. To not include all cycles in an evolution cycle is like asking people to believe in a fairytale, let us all pretend evolution starts here and deny everything which has come before it as if it doesn't exist. How the evolution of life was started on earth is very vital to how evolution works and pans out. Abiogeneis gave many answers to science as it pertains to the theory of evolution. If you removed Chemistry from the theory of evolution you wouldn't have a theory at all.

Some people like to look at the small picture of evolution cycles, ie The theory of Evolution, and others like to look at the big picture, ie the evolution cycle of the Universe as a whole.

Personally I believe the theory of evolution is incorrectly named.

What are you talking about?

 

[Magic Man]

Can we start another thread with a pool of how many posts it'll take for that thread to turn into mocking and arguing? I'm betting not long.

That depends. If the questions are actually asked to get an answer and not to start an argument, then it probably wouldn't turn into mocking and arguing. Yes, there are some here who would mock or argue regardless, but I think the majority would respond well to honest questions no matter how dumb they are. The only time I get an attitude is when the question is obviously posed because the person doesn't actually want the answer.

 

[fantome profane]

Creationists irrational? Interesting generalization there! I would tend to think that a creationist is arguing the point of a process in which we got to where we are today. i.e. the seven days of creation . . . a process. Is that not what evolution is? A process in which some believe we got to where we are today?

As Autodidact says the difference is one is supported by the evidence and the other is not. But another major difference is that evolution explains the process, how it happened, what mechanism caused the changes. Those who oppose evolution however have no such explanation.

You speak of the 7 (6) days of creation for example. Ok, so it was on the sixth day that “God” created the cattle and the creeping thing and the breast of the earth. Great, wonderful, fantastic. But the question is HOW? HOW did “God” create these things? Describe the process. Set aside for the moment the need to have evidence to back up this answer as to how “God” did it, and just give me a theory (that is theory in the common non-scientific sense of the word).

When people claim that an alternative theory is equal to evolution with out any evidence that is foolish. When they claim that an alternative theory is equal to evolution without an alternative theory that is absolutely irrational.