View Single Post
Old 12-07-2012, 10:17   #100
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,957
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by neon View Post
Why does it make you so uneasy to compare a theory with a guess? You know that's what a theory is until it is a law.
OMFG

You have either (a) twice ignored the video of scientists explaining how the terms are used in science, or (b) watched the video and chosen to ignore it so that you can continue with your gross misrepresentations of how the terms are used among scientists.

I'll break it down briefly for you for the avoidance of doubt:

fact -- confirmed observations. For example the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, or an apple released from a tree falls to the ground. Facts are merely data points, they don't explain anything.

hypothesis -- testable statement. Hypotheses can be accepted or rejected based on testing.

theory -- explanation. A theory is an explanation based on facts and testable hypotheses and explains the facts. Theories can be used to make predictions. Even when supported by a metric arse-load of data, theories remain falsifiable.

law -- a descriptive generalization. e.g. laws of thermodynamics. Theories are used to explain laws, and many disciplines of science don't have laws.

The hierarchy of increasing importance/value to scientists is: facts --> hypotheses --> laws --> theories.

Falsification can occur at any point in this process -- that's actually a great thing about science. Yes, even "facts" can be falsified.

Swans are white would have been a fact in Europe until somebody made it to Australia.
Religious Issues

Any questions?


Quote:
Originally Posted by neon View Post
Don't you understand that evolution cannot be fact?
Of course, it can, and it is. Leaving aside for the moment natural selection or any other mechanism, "life evolved from simple single-celled organisms to more complex organisms" is a fact. No amount of biblical objection is going to change that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neon View Post
You accept the fact that nonliving chemicals form into simple life-forms into more complex life-forms and finally into humans. You say that this change occurred over millions of years, and the dominant mechanism that is supposed to have driven it is natural selection coupled with mutations.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with non-living chemicals -- I don't know how many times this has been explained. Evolution begins with the first self-replicating molecule. Perhaps the Evolution Primer thread would be a good place for you to start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neon View Post
YOU have not found any missing links.
Many, many transitional species have been identified, but to ask for a missing link is again to boast of your ignorance of the theory of evolution. Evolution occurs through branching (like a bush), not like rungs up a ladder with a missing link. A missing link suggests evolution occurs like rungs up a ladder. If that were the case we would have a single, highly evolved species rather than the millions of species that we have today (plus all the extinct species). Again, the primer would be a good place to start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neon View Post
We can only observe variation within the created kind.
Your links are still missing.
You still haven't answered the question: how many "kinds" would have been represented on the ark?

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote