Eden / The concept of Original Sin

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick+Jun 10 2005, 03:01 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick &#064; Jun 10 2005, 03:01 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DC_DEEP
Can we repeat the evolution of the eohippus into the modern horse (I don&#39;t mean looking at the bones again, I mean repeat the evolution from scratch)?

Are you saying that unless we can set up some 3rd grade experiment to test a phenomenon and watch it as it happens, we can&#39;t be certain of it? Scientists know what happens near black holes, know how fusion works inside the sun, and invented things like the germ theory of disease without ever observing things "as they happened," merely by using available evidence to construct theories. William Harvey came up with the theory of circulating blood without ever "seeing it happen" live. It doesn&#39;t matter whether we observe something as it happens; what matters is a theory or law&#39;s explanatory power. Every time someone digs up a new fossil, the theory of evolution is being tested, and so far, its explanatory power has stood the test of time.


Out of curiosity, what is your educational background? Major? Amount of Science taken during college?

[post=319497]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Interesting that you would consider chemistry experiments with dangerous materials to be on a third-grade level. Thank you for your compliment.

Concerning my education, I have a Bachelors degree in education. After two years of classroom teaching, I went back to school and picked up 36 semester hours in the sciences. Those included College Chemistry I & II, University Physics I & II, Organic Chemistry I & II, Botany, and Physical Chemistry I & II. Why don&#39;t I have my Master&#39;s and PhD? Because I could not afford more school, had to get back into the workforce full time. What was I working toward? Medical School. How were my grades? I squeaked out a 3.56 GPA, despite also working almost full time (about 30 to 36 hours per week.) Unfortunately, between the hours spent in the classroom, and the hours spent working, that didn&#39;t leave much for sleep or studying, so my grades did suffer a bit when I didn&#39;t complete all the required reading. May I ask about your Doctoral degree?

P. S. On the National Teachers Exam, I scored in the 98th percentile. I did take the Medical College Admissions Test. Only reached the 92nd percentile on that one (but that was before I took Organic II and P-chem.)

 

[madame_zora]

GBO, after all this time, we are so close to being in complete agreement it is scary. What really sucks is that I thought that was probably the case.

It is only splitting hairs to realise that I am only a tiny bit more conservative than you, and that&#39;s really it. No, I don&#39;t see you as naive in the least. I also have never advocated the giving up of anything. I agree that we should press on with integrity and ambition in our attempts to know what we can about the universe and all things contained therein. I think our only difference may be "in the meantime". I feel the need to say, "I have no conclusive position on that", whereby you may prefer, "based on the amount known so far, I believe...". That is a very small difference, you must admit. There are certainly times when I venture into the realm of divulging my beliefs, but I find it necessary to disclaim them as such. There is so precious little I regard as fact that I am earnestly seeking information when I render any opinion. That&#39;s my purpose in engaging in these conversations, and they have been most beneficial in that regard.

We both seem to agree that faith is the gap-filler between what is known and what is not. I think we both feel it is or should be temporary, to be used until more is known, however we both know that there are some things that simply will not be revealed in our lifetimes. I&#39;m okay with that, the older I get the happier I am to have understood even the amount that I have. Graced with a long life, I hope to be an eager student for the rest of it, but should my death be sooner I would still be glad I tried.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Jana, you are trying to make me go straight, aren&#39;t you? You evil temptress&#33; You know I&#39;m a sucker for a bright and open mind&#33; (oh, not to mention your lovely avatar)

XOXO

DC

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by iggy@Jun 10 2005, 05:43 PM
as far as i am concerned, the theory of creationism is recognized by science as one of the theories(with big bang and the steady state theories).

[post=319469]Quoted post[/post]​

negative. creationism is recognized by creationists; scientists regard it as waffle because it&#39;s not a scientific theory, unlike the other two examples you cited. those are both very speculative theories largely based on observations of the behaviour of subatomic particles - however, creationism has no observational or extrapolative component whatsoever. it came straight out of the human imagination.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP@Jun 10 2005, 08:04 PM
Jana, you are trying to make me go straight, aren&#39;t you? You evil temptress&#33; You know I&#39;m a sucker for a bright and open mind&#33; (oh, not to mention your lovely avatar)

XOXO

DC

[post=319521]Quoted post[/post]​

You&#39;re safe, I still don&#39;t have a dick (dammit&#33. Me loves you too though.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by madame_zora+Jun 10 2005, 04:17 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Jun 10 2005, 04:17 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DC_DEEP@Jun 10 2005, 08:04 PM

[post=319521]Quoted post[/post]​

You&#39;re safe, I still don&#39;t have a dick (dammit&#33. Me loves you too though.

[post=319528]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
LOL here we go with the assumptions, again. I think you are fabulous without a dick, darlin. If I had to make an absolute choice between a dick and a brain, I would definitely have to go for the brain. Lucky for me, my other half has both&#33; On the other hand, GBO has one but I doubt he would share (with me, anyway.)

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP
Concerning my education, I have a Bachelors degree in education. After two years of classroom teaching, I went back to school and picked up 36 semester hours in the sciences. Those included College Chemistry I & II, University Physics I & II, Organic Chemistry I & II, Botany, and Physical Chemistry I & II. Why don&#39;t I have my Master&#39;s and PhD? Because I could not afford more school, had to get back into the workforce full time. What was I working toward? Medical School. How were my grades? I squeaked out a 3.56 GPA, despite also working almost full time (about 30 to 36 hours per week.) Unfortunately, between the hours spent in the classroom, and the hours spent working, that didn&#39;t leave much for sleep or studying, so my grades did suffer a bit when I didn&#39;t complete all the required reading. May I ask about your Doctoral degree?

Like I said, I was just curious, as you appear to be well versed on the subject. I don&#39;t mind being proven wrong if I&#39;m really wrong. Could you address posts #107 and #108?

And BTW, I only have a Master&#39;s Degree in Development Economics.

 

[jonb]

In science, "theory" means "the best explanation available". A guess is a hypothesis if it is logical (not fallacious or contradictory) and falsifiable (can be proven false). A hypothesis is a theory if it&#39;s the most parsimonious hypothesis which hasn&#39;t been proven false yet.

Facts, Freddie, are a different matter entirely. Facts are direct observations. They can contradict hypotheses. The new theory is usually just a minor variation of the old one. Special relativity, for example, is just general relativity with very high speeds factored in.

FWIW, the main reason creationists these days* have problems with evolution is because it requires the world be older than the Ussher timeline. However, that was proven long before Darwin; geologists proved it ages before. Plus, ancient Egypt and China kinda contradict the flood&#39;s place in that timeline. In fact, the whole flood story disagrees with science and history.

*At one time, objections to evolution were over natural selection and naturalistic conjectures made by people like Julian Huxley and Ernst Häckel about society as a whole. Now that the creationists have allied with the robber barons, that&#39;s obviously not a problem.

 

[jay_too]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP@Jun 10 2005, 05:33 PM
Ah, here we go again.. One quick question, jay and others. Does it have to involve the scientific method to be called science?

As I recall from 7th grade general science class, a major part of the scientific method is CAN IT BE REPEATED/REPRODUCED, many many times, with the same predictable results?

[post=319466]Quoted post[/post]​

Nah, science is the search for explanation. Reproducibility is highly desired but are not a prerequisite. Examples of science without reproducibility include

Newton and gravity [the interaction of masses]. The technology to measure the attraction between masses did not come for centuries; however, the theory was too beautiful and precise not to be accepted. Today, the measurement of gravity is cutting edge science/technology.

The big bang. There was, of course, no observer at the moment of creation; the conditions that would have created the universe have been inferred and/or predicted by mathematics and physics. That the current view of the origins of the universe are largely correct is confirmed by the pervasive black body radiation throughout the universe.

The symmetry and weirdness of quantum physics. From the mathematical equations early in the 20th century, it was predicted that a particle might exist in two places at once. Many decades later, we observe the phenomena.

String theory. One hot topic in physics today is strings, tiny unobservable particles that oscillate. The mathematics of strings predict multidimensional universes and in future decades find use in explanations of onagene behavior, energy conversion, and a host of other uses.

Science uses mathematics and accepted general scientific principles to explain phenomena and to predict outcomes. In physics there tend to be theoreticians and applied physics; both do science for they are trying to understand basic physical processes.

jay

 

[jay_too]

Originally posted by iggy+Jun 10 2005, 05:43 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(iggy &#064; Jun 10 2005, 05:43 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jay_too@Jun 10 2005, 11:46 PM
I think any technically trained person would be hard pressed not to call evolution science and not to conclude creationism is well....junk. Observational data confirm the premises of evolution. Creationism, on the otherhand, answers questions with multiple creations and the guided development of a supreme being. To physical scientists, this is relying on magic for an explanation; magic is unexplainable.

[post=319431]Quoted post[/post]​

as far as i am concerned, the theory of creationism is recognized by science as one of the theories(with big bang and the steady state theories).

iggy

[post=319469]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Perhaps, you are right; but I have yet to see anyone explain the underlying principles. If God does guide the intelligent design of the universe, how does one measure or what does one measure this devine influence?

Faith? Well, that does not cut it...that throws creationism/intelligent design back into the void called magic. And yes, I have known people who believe in magic rather than science. I have no problem with non-rational approaches to life; however, I do have a problem with calling non-rational approaches science.

jay

 

[steve319]

DMW, thanks for the chiasmus examples&#33; Sounds like they certainly are from the original text. Interesting to hear that it&#39;s a feature of ancient Jewish writings.

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Jun 9 2005, 03:46 AM
Incidentally, have you noticed the inordinately fondness for chiasmus displayed by Dr. Seuss?

That&#39;s a fun feature of his language. Just love Seuss. So playful and quirky.

 

[Freddie53]

Freddie’s quote: Post 106

“Theories are scientific hypothesis of what scientists have postulated that may have happened. But they can&#39; be proved.”

FREDDIE&#39;S COMMENT:

Yes I screwed up a bit in that sentence, but the next paragraph clears up any misunderstanding. I make it clear to any reader that theories are postulated with credible evidence. Hypothesis is only a “hunch.” Hunches must be tested through scientific inquiry methods to become a theory. I think my next comments clear that up and they were part of the same post.

“In science my observations are based on theories subject to change as new scientific evidence is found and new theories are postulated. I tend to believe the present theories until another theory with more credibility is formulated and tested and presented with enough evidence to make the theory credible.

And believing both has folks in both camps ready to question strongly my beliefs.

Creation Science in its present form is not science.”

FREDDIE&#39;S COMMENT:

Dr. D? Why didn’t you quote the rest of what I said? And my last quote tells it all Creation Science in its present form is not science. I certainly don’t know what from some scientific or philosophic study or experiment or observation might happen under the name “Creation Science/” I can only comment on the form that we see now which is a religious concept, not scientific theory.


FROM POST 119

QUOTE(Freddie53)
Theories are scientific hypothesis of what scientists have postulated that may have happened. But they can&#39; be proved.
LOL

QUOTE
And don&#39;t call evolution science
Come again? I&#39;m about to head off to the gym but let me drop a quick reply before I go and I&#39;ll probably explain further when I come back if it is necessary.

Dr. D quote:
Evolution is a fact,


FREDDIE’S COMMENT:

I am being misquoted here. Look at post 116 above. I clearly said that Creation Science in its present form is not science. I did not say the second quote which is written in such a way as to make it appear that I said evolution is not science. I never said such a thing. Evolution is very much science.

“Evolution is a fact” from Dr. D.

FREDDIE&#39;S COMMENT:

Yes some evolution is factual. It is provable. No doubt about it. However, the science books still call it the Theory of Evolution. I know most scientists believe it to be true with no doubt at all. And basically they are right about the theory in general. But not all conclusions drawn by scientists concerning evolution are universally agreed to. The Piltdown Man was a hoax yet science for a long time consider this hoax to be the real thing until those that made up the fraud were caught by other scientists.

We know a lot more about evolution every day as new evidence and new technologies come into play. But we still can’t definitively draw a picture of the origin of man yet. Scientists don’t agree about which humanoids are our direct ancestors and which ones aren’t.

Dr. D’s quote:

Most of the religious faithful, (and unfortunately it usually comes from their leadership) seem to forget this simple etiquette. The more strongly they believe it, the more adamantly they insist that I not only agree, but follow.

FREDDIE&#39;S COMMENT:

When have I ever suggested that you had to follow my religious beliefs? But you are doing to me that which you hate. You are adamantly insisting that I agree exactly with everything you say about science even though you know all scientists don’t agree all the time.

Dr. D quote: Post 124

Freddie, they&#39;ve simulated Evolution in fruit flies as in their brief lifespan allows for generations to pass in relatively short amounts of time, and have witnessed exactly what is postulated in the Theory of Evolution. Its just a scientific hypothesis, then I guess. Right, Freddie?

I&#39;m just baffled that anyone could say with a straight face that the Theory of Evolution is a scientific hypothesis. This shows that you have very little knowledge of science in general.

FREDDIE’S QUOTE:

I never said that the Theory of Evolution was just a scientific hypothesis. That is an outright misstating what I said.

And you have the gall to suggest I have little knowledge of science in general? Who made you the Science Police? I think I have a very good understanding of the difference between facts, frauds, hypotheses, and theories. Some things stated as facts are frauds and are false. Some theories are absolutely positively true, but they are listed as theories nevertheless because the evidence is not sufficient for scientists to list them as facts rather than theories.

If you have a problem with that, I suggest you contact the top scientists and the leading universities and get them to change it from the Theory of Evolution to the Laws of Evolution. No doubt parts of the Theory of Evolution are laws rather than theories. But hey, I didn’t write the textbooks that call it a Theory rather than a Law.

Dr. D’s Quote: Post 138

Out of curiosity, what is your educational background? Major? Amount of Science taken during college?

FREDDIE&#39;S COMMENT on Post 138.

So now you are questioning the Major DC_Deep’s scientific qualifications as well. Glad to know I am not the only one you question their knowledge of science.

Post 144

QUOTE(iggy @ Jun 10 2005, 05:43 PM)
as far as i am concerned, the theory of creationism is recognized by science as one of the theories(with big bang and the steady state theories).

FREDDIE&#39;S COMMENT:

I don’t have a problem with you iggy. But I want to clariy that it is you, not me that referred to Creationism as a theory. The vast majority of scientists that I have read do not consider creationism as a theory. Creationism is a belief that is based on other things then scientific inquiry or scientific method. While it may be true, there is at this time no scientific evidence to point to it qualifying as a scientific theory. Scientists generally don’t consider Creationism as a part of science.

Dr. D’s post 147

Like I said, I was just curious, as you appear to be well versed on the subject. I don&#39;t mind being proven wrong if I&#39;m really wrong.

FREDDIE&#39;S COMMENT:

Is it possible that you have misjudged who I am, what I believe about evolution? The title of this thread was for Christians to come forward with comments. I firmly believe you have assumed too much about me just on the basis that I am a Christian. Many Christians believe in some form of evolution. Very few dismiss the entire Theory.

I thing that GBO said it best. Evolution itself is a fact. The process it follows is theory. I am paraphrasing here.

Certainly the exact time line for it all is conjecture at this point. “This formation is between one and two million years old.” Not extremely definitive. Certainly day, month and year are not included here.

Post 148 Jonb’s quote:

In science, "theory" means "the best explanation available". A guess is a hypothesis if it is logical (not fallacious or contradictory) and falsifiable (can be proven false). A hypothesis is a theory if it&#39;s the most parsimonious hypothesis which hasn&#39;t been proven false yet.

Facts, Freddie, are a different matter entirely. Facts are direct observations. They can contradict hypotheses. The new theory is usually just a minor variation of the old one.

FREDDIE&#39;S COMMENTS:

Jonb, I have no problem with what you wrote there. However, it does contradict Dr. D’s assertion that put me down for stating that a hypothesis is a theory. I mistaking left out the part about using the scientific method or scientific enquiry to test the hypothesis. However, you suggest that a hypothesis can be a theory.

Dr. D. Is Jonb wrong here?

MY FINAL COMMENTS to Dr. D:

If I am wrong please forgive me. But it appears that you are deliberately taking what I am saying and turning it to say things I did not say. It appears that you have some sort of vendetta against me. Maybe not, but it appears that way.

I have gladly clarified some posts that you questioned even thought the following paragraph clarified it. I don’t recall every being unkind to you or putting you down for anything.

To GBO:

Thanks for your cordial conversations on this thread. On issues of science we agree. On issues of religion we both agree that neither of us can prove anything for sure in this life. It is a matter of belief and giving your beliefs faith if that is your choice.

To Jonb:

Jonb, you always help me out on the finer things of science when I need it. Thanks.

To Jana,

You gave a masterpiece statements on all of this that I enjoyed reading.

To others that I didn’t name:

This thread is so long. I am not tonight going back tonight and read the entire thread to thank every one who has posted. Maybe later. I really have some things I need to do.

But I didn’t’ deliberately leave anyone out. And if you aren’t named, at least I don’t remember you posting something that I totally disagreed with.

To All:

I am a big boy now and I can take someone differing with me, just please don’t deliberately misquote me and question my credentials and put down my knowledge of science and think you are going to get away with it. I do know how to research the posts and present the facts as they are.

Thanks for all who got this far reading&#33;

Freddie

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

“Theories are scientific hypothesis of what scientists have postulated that may have happened. But they can&#39; be proved.”

FREDDIE&#39;S COMMENT:

Yes I screwed up a bit in that sentence, but the next paragraph clears up any misunderstanding. I make it clear to any reader that theories are postulated with credible evidence. Hypothesis is only a “hunch.” Hunches must be tested through scientific inquiry methods to become a theory. I think my next comments clear that up and they were part of the same post.

As you said, it was the way you phrased it.

I am being misquoted here. Look at post 116 above. I clearly said that Creation Science in its present form is not science. I did not say the second quote which is written in such a way as to make it appear that I said evolution is not science. I never said such a thing. Evolution is very much science.

"And don&#39;t call evolution - religion and creation – science. It does a disservice to both."

yes some evolution is factual. It is provable. No doubt about it. However, the science books still call it the Theory of Evolution.

I&#39;d be worried if they didn&#39;t.

I know most scientists believe it to be true with no doubt at all. And basically they are right about the theory in general. But not all conclusions drawn by scientists concerning evolution are universally agreed to.

Yeah, I was talking about the Theory in general. I would have thought that was obvious, Freddie.

If you have a problem with that, I suggest you contact the top scientists and the leading universities and get them to change it from the Theory of Evolution to the Laws of Evolution. No doubt parts of the Theory of Evolution are laws rather than theories. But hey, I didn’t write the textbooks that call it a Theory rather than a Law.

You know, Einstein&#39;s Gravitational theory actually works better in both explaining AND Predicting phenomena DESPITE the fact Newton&#39;s theories are called "Laws." Do you understand that all "laws of gravity" break down on the sub-atomic level and inside stars and are therefore are not "facts," and do not correspond to reality?

4. Science Terms: Distinctions, Restrictions, and Confusions

§ 32. law / theory


Although the language of science strives for precision, there are terms that are used solely in their historical context even when other meanings may be more familiar. Because of this, it is easy to introduce an ambiguity into discussion. Take the term law, for example. In a legal sense, a law is a body of rules governing the affairs of a community. When applied to the natural world, the word law has the connotation of unwavering fact: a law of science tells you that this is the way that the world works. In the 17th century, when Newton devised his laws of motion and gravitation, the predictive success of this work was unprecedented. As far as could be practically determined at that time, Newton’s laws always held. In fact, in 1846 these laws were responsible for the discovery of one of the planets—two hundred years after Newton’s time. By analyzing the inconsistencies in the orbit of the planet Uranus, the Parisian astronomer Leverrier was able to predict the position of the as yet unseen eighth planet from the Sun, Neptune. Ultimately, however, unresolvable inconsistencies did turn up between Newton’s laws and observed phenomena in the solar system. For example, the orbit of Mercury deviates slightly from that predicted by Newton’s laws. By historical precedent, however, Newton’s laws retained their names. New theories were put forward to account for these inconsistencies, as well as other problems in physics. The most successful theories to date have been Einstein’s Theories of Special and General Relativity. These works account for the discrepancies in Mercury’s orbit; they also predict many other new phenomena not even imagined in Newton’s time. Thus, we have the curious state of affairs where Newton’s constructions are referred to as laws and Einstein’s constructions are referred to as theories, even though Einstein’s theories have enjoyed far more predictive success than Newton’s laws.

In other words, the terms "law" and "theory" do not inherently refer to different levels of substantiation, predictability, or even acceptability by the scientific community.

Post 148 Jonb’s quote:

In science, "theory" means "the best explanation available". A guess is a hypothesis if it is logical (not fallacious or contradictory) and falsifiable (can be proven false). A hypothesis is a theory if it&#39;s the most parsimonious hypothesis which hasn&#39;t been proven false yet.

Facts, Freddie, are a different matter entirely. Facts are direct observations. They can contradict hypotheses. The new theory is usually just a minor variation of the old one.

FREDDIE&#39;S COMMENTS:

Jonb, I have no problem with what you wrote there. However, it does contradict Dr. D’s assertion that put me down for stating that a hypothesis is a theory. I mistaking left out the part about using the scientific method or scientific enquiry to test the hypothesis. However, you suggest that a hypothesis can be a theory.

Dr. D. Is Jonb wrong here?

Um, no. Both Laws and Theories tend to start out as hypotheses, obviously. So, if you don&#39;t mind me asking... what the fuck are you arguing?

So now you are questioning the Major DC_Deep’s scientific qualifications as well.

I think I already addressed this one. No, I wasn&#39;t.

 

[Freddie53]

“

I am being misquoted here. Look at post 116 above. I clearly said that Creation Science in its present form is not science. I did not say the second quote which is written in such a way as to make it appear that I said evolution is not science. I never said such a thing. Evolution is very much science.

"And don&#39;t call evolution - religion and creation – science. It does a disservice to both."

FREDDIE REAL QUESTION jUNE 12

WHY DO YOU INSIST ON TRYING TO MAKE ME SAY THINGS I DID NOT SAY. YOUR RETORT WOULD MAKE IT APPEAR THAT I THINK CREATION SCIENCE IS A SCIENCE. IT IS NOT. MY QUOTE WAS "CREATION SCIENCE IN ITS PRESENT FORM IS NOT SCIENCE." I AM NOT GOING TO PREDICT WHAT THE WORDS CREATION SCIENCE COULD BE USED TO MEAN IN SOME OTHER TIME AND PLACE. ALL I CAN COMMENT ON IS THE STUFF BEING PASSED AROUND AS CREATION SCIENCE IS A FRAUD. NOW PRAY TELL WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO FIND WRONG WITH THAT STATEMENT?

yes some evolution is factual. It is provable. No doubt about it. However, the science books still call it the Theory of Evolution.

I&#39;d be worried if they didn&#39;t.

I know most scientists believe it to be true with no doubt at all. And basically they are right about the theory in general. But not all conclusions drawn by scientists concerning evolution are universally agreed to.

Yeah, I was talking about the Theory in general. I would have thought that was obvious, Freddie.

FREDDIE&#39;S COMMENT JUNE 12

OH NO IT IS NOT OBVIOUS. TRY TO TEACH SCIENCE AND SOCIAL STUDIES IN SIXTH GRADE IN THE SOUTH. EVOLUTION MEANS ONLY ONE THING. "THOSE FOLKS AT THE SCHOOL ARE TRYING TO TEACH MY KID THAT WE CAME FROM MONKEYS." THERE IS NO OTHER PART OF THE THEORY TO THEM.

THEN THEIR DARLING CHILDREN ANNOUNCE THAT THE EARTH IS EXACTLY SO MANY THOUSAND YEARS OLD AND EVEN HAVE IT DOWN TO THE DAYS.

TRY PRESENTING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION TO THAT SITUATION AND KEEP THE FUNDIE PARENTS OFF YOUR BACK. I DID IT. TOOK A LOT OF WORK AND FINESE.

If you have a problem with that, I suggest you contact the top scientists and the leading universities and get them to change it from the Theory of Evolution to the Laws of Evolution. No doubt parts of the Theory of Evolution are laws rather than theories. But hey, I didn’t write the textbooks that call it a Theory rather than a Law.

You know, Einstein&#39;s Gravitational theory actually works better in both explaining AND Predicting phenomena DESPITE the fact Newton&#39;s theories are called "Laws." Do you understand that all "laws of gravity" break down on the sub-atomic level and inside stars and are therefore are not "facts," and do not correspond to reality?

4. Science Terms: Distinctions, Restrictions, and Confusions

§ 32. law / theory


Although the language of science strives for precision, there are terms that are used solely in their historical context even when other meanings may be more familiar. Because of this, it is easy to introduce an ambiguity into discussion. Take the term law, for example. In a legal sense, a law is a body of rules governing the affairs of a community. When applied to the natural world, the word law has the connotation of unwavering fact: a law of science tells you that this is the way that the world works. In the 17th century, when Newton devised his laws of motion and gravitation, the predictive success of this work was unprecedented. As far as could be practically determined at that time, Newton’s laws always held. In fact, in 1846 these laws were responsible for the discovery of one of the planets—two hundred years after Newton’s time. By analyzing the inconsistencies in the orbit of the planet Uranus, the Parisian astronomer Leverrier was able to predict the position of the as yet unseen eighth planet from the Sun, Neptune. Ultimately, however, unresolvable inconsistencies did turn up between Newton’s laws and observed phenomena in the solar system. For example, the orbit of Mercury deviates slightly from that predicted by Newton’s laws. By historical precedent, however, Newton’s laws retained their names. New theories were put forward to account for these inconsistencies, as well as other problems in physics. The most successful theories to date have been Einstein’s Theories of Special and General Relativity. These works account for the discrepancies in Mercury’s orbit; they also predict many other new phenomena not even imagined in Newton’s time. Thus, we have the curious state of affairs where Newton’s constructions are referred to as laws and Einstein’s constructions are referred to as theories, even though Einstein’s theories have enjoyed far more predictive success than Newton’s laws.

In other words, the terms "law" and "theory" do not inherently refer to different levels of substantiation, predictability, or even acceptability by the scientific community.

Post 148 Jonb’s quote:

In science, "theory" means "the best explanation available". A guess is a hypothesis if it is logical (not fallacious or contradictory) and falsifiable (can be proven false). A hypothesis is a theory if it&#39;s the most parsimonious hypothesis which hasn&#39;t been proven false yet.

Facts, Freddie, are a different matter entirely. Facts are direct observations. They can contradict hypotheses. The new theory is usually just a minor variation of the old one.

FREDDIE&#39;S COMMENTS:

Jonb, I have no problem with what you wrote there. However, it does contradict Dr. D’s assertion that put me down for stating that a hypothesis is a theory. I mistaking left out the part about using the scientific method or scientific enquiry to test the hypothesis. However, you suggest that a hypothesis can be a theory.

Dr. D. Is Jonb wrong here?

Um, no. Both Laws and Theories tend to start out as hypotheses, obviously. So, if you don&#39;t mind me asking... what the fuck are you arguing?


FREDDIE&#39;S COMMENT JUNE 12

WHAT THE FUCK AM I ARGUING. I WAS ARGUING NOTHING. I WAS ASKING A QUESTION AND I WASN&#39;T SURE OF THE ANSWER. YOU AND JONB APPEARED TO CONTRIDICT EACH OTHER AND I ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION. I GOT IT. AND I DON&#39;T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE ANSWER.

THIS THREAD IS REALLY TURNED SOUR IN MANY WAYS. I HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT THE FACT THAT I AM A PROFESSED CHRISTIAN IS INFLUENCING SOME HERE TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ON WHAT I BELIEVE

I AM A BIG BOY NOW AND I DON&#39;T BELIEVE IN CREATION SCIENCE. AND I AM GETTING TIRED OF POSTING REGULARLY TO THE SAME PERSON THAT I DON&#39;T BELIEVE IN CREATION SCIENCE ONLY TO HAVE THAT PERSON KEEP REPEATING THAT I DO OR INSENUATING IT. I AM REALLY TIRED OF IT.

THE CONCEPT OF CREATION IS A RELIGIOUS DOGMA AND AS SUCH SHOULD ONLY BE TAUGHT WHEN COMPARING ORIGINS OF RELIGIONS IN COMPARATIVE RELIGIONS. AND THEN THE SCHOOL ONLY TEACHES ABOUT RELIGION. NOT THAT IT IS TRUE OR FALSE.

AT THE PRESENT TIME, SCIENCE HAS NEITHER PROVED THE EXISTANCE OF GOD NOR PROVED THAT THERE IS NO GOD.

SCIENCE AS A DISCIPLINE CAN&#39;T IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BE IN THE BUSINESS OF DECLARING THERE IS NO GOD AND THAT YOU CAN&#39;T BELIEVE IN GOD AND ACCEPT THE THEORIES OF EV0LUTION OR TEACHING THAT SCIENCE HAS PROVED THE EXISTANCE OF GOD. THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE OF HINDERING RELIGION. RELIGION CAN&#39;T BE FAVORED OR HINDERED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. NEITHER CAN YOU TEACH CREATION SCIENCE AS A FACT OR ANY RELIGION AS BEING THE CORRECT ONE AND GENERALLY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAN&#39;T TEACH THAT A RELIGION IS FALSE EITHER.

I DON&#39;T WANT TO KEEP THIS THREAD ALIVE ON THIS SUBJECT.


I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO BURY THE HATCHET AND BE FRIENDS WITH ANYONE ON THIS THREAD. I AM NOT A GRUDGE HOLDER ONCE THE PROBLEM IS SETTLED. SAY WHAT YOU WANT ABOUT WHAT YOU BELIEVE AND I WILL DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT. JUST DON&#39;T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

So now you are questioning the Major DC_Deep’s scientific qualifications as well.

I think I already addressed this one. No, I wasn&#39;t.

[post=319677]Quoted post[/post]​

 

[GottaBigOne]

Freddie, dude, calm down, you&#39;re letting yourself get all worked up about this. I know you don&#39;t like to be misrepresented, and you have been, but its ok. I&#39;ve been misunderstood many times not only in this thread but also on this board, its the risk we take when using text over the internet.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by Freddie53


WHY DO YOU INSIST ON TRYING TO MAKE ME SAY THINGS I DID NOT SAY. YOUR RETORT WOULD MAKE IT APPEAR THAT I THINK CREATION SCIENCE IS A SCIENCE. IT IS NOT. MY QUOTE WAS "CREATION SCIENCE IN ITS PRESENT FORM IS NOT SCIENCE." I AM NOT GOING TO PREDICT WHAT THE WORDS CREATION SCIENCE COULD BE USED TO MEAN IN SOME OTHER TIME AND PLACE. ALL I CAN COMMENT ON IS THE STUFF BEING PASSED AROUND AS CREATION SCIENCE IS A FRAUD. NOW PRAY TELL WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO FIND WRONG WITH THAT STATEMENT?



OH NO IT IS NOT OBVIOUS. TRY TO TEACH SCIENCE AND SOCIAL STUDIES IN SIXTH GRADE IN THE SOUTH. EVOLUTION MEANS ONLY ONE THING. "THOSE FOLKS AT THE SCHOOL ARE TRYING TO TEACH MY KID THAT WE CAME FROM MONKEYS." THERE IS NO OTHER PART OF THE THEORY TO THEM.

THEN THEIR DARLING CHILDREN ANNOUNCE THAT THE EARTH IS EXACTLY SO MANY THOUSAND YEARS OLD AND EVEN HAVE IT DOWN TO THE DAYS.

TRY PRESENTING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION TO THAT SITUATION AND KEEP THE FUNDIE PARENTS OFF YOUR BACK. I DID IT. TOOK A LOT OF WORK AND FINESE.


WHAT THE FUCK AM I ARGUING. I WAS ARGUING NOTHING. I WAS ASKING A QUESTION AND I WASN&#39;T SURE OF THE ANSWER. YOU AND JONB APPEARED TO CONTRIDICT EACH OTHER AND I ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION. I GOT IT. AND I DON&#39;T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE ANSWER.

THIS THREAD IS REALLY TURNED SOUR IN MANY WAYS. I HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT THE FACT THAT I AM A PROFESSED CHRISTIAN IS INFLUENCING SOME HERE TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ON WHAT I BELIEVE

I AM A BIG BOY NOW AND I DON&#39;T BELIEVE IN CREATION SCIENCE. AND I AM GETTING TIRED OF POSTING REGULARLY TO THE SAME PERSON THAT I DON&#39;T BELIEVE IN CREATION SCIENCE ONLY TO HAVE THAT PERSON KEEP REPEATING THAT I DO OR INSENUATING IT. I AM REALLY TIRED OF IT.

THE CONCEPT OF CREATION IS A RELIGIOUS DOGMA AND AS SUCH SHOULD ONLY BE TAUGHT WHEN COMPARING ORIGINS OF RELIGIONS IN COMPARATIVE RELIGIONS. AND THEN THE SCHOOL ONLY TEACHES ABOUT RELIGION. NOT THAT IT IS TRUE OR FALSE.

AT THE PRESENT TIME, SCIENCE HAS NEITHER PROVED THE EXISTANCE OF GOD NOR PROVED THAT THERE IS NO GOD.

SCIENCE AS A DISCIPLINE CAN&#39;T IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BE IN THE BUSINESS OF DECLARING THERE IS NO GOD AND THAT YOU CAN&#39;T BELIEVE IN GOD AND ACCEPT THE THEORIES OF EV0LUTION OR TEACHING THAT SCIENCE HAS PROVED THE EXISTANCE OF GOD. THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE OF HINDERING RELIGION. RELIGION CAN&#39;T BE FAVORED OR HINDERED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. NEITHER CAN YOU TEACH CREATION SCIENCE AS A FACT OR ANY RELIGION AS BEING THE CORRECT ONE AND GENERALLY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAN&#39;T TEACH THAT A RELIGION IS FALSE EITHER.

I DON&#39;T WANT TO KEEP THIS THREAD ALIVE ON THIS SUBJECT.


I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO BURY THE HATCHET AND BE FRIENDS WITH ANYONE ON THIS THREAD. I AM NOT A GRUDGE HOLDER ONCE THE PROBLEM IS SETTLED. SAY WHAT YOU WANT ABOUT WHAT YOU BELIEVE AND I WILL DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT. JUST DON&#39;T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

Easy on the CAPS LOCK there, old timer.

Why do you insist on trying to make me say things i did not say.

Um, no I don&#39;t. I never said, or even implied, that you believe in Creation. You said, and I quote...

And don&#39;t call evolution - religion and creation – science. It does a disservice to both.

So, according to you:

1. Creationism in its present form is not science.
2. Evolution in its present form is not science.


What else could you have meant by that? Are you honestly saying that when you were saying "and don&#39;t call evolution - religion and creation – science. It does a disservice to both," what you were in fact really saying was "Evolution is very much science?" How stupid do you think I am?

Why do you keep arguing the exact opposite of what you originally said, and then making a statement like it&#39;s what you&#39;ve been saying all along? When you said "and don&#39;t call evolution - religion and creation – science. It does a disservice to both," I assumed that was what you meant. You didn&#39;t get caught in a slip up and change the meaning of what you originally posted to avoid looking like a dickhead. It was me.. my bad.

Try to teach science and social studies in sixth grade in the south. Evolution means only one thing. "Those folks at the school are trying to teach my kid that we came from monkeys." there is no other part of the theory to them.

Not really. Many Christians would indeed deny natural selection (which is one form of the dictionary definition of Evolution) and not just species to species evolution.

 

[Freddie53]

And don&#39;t call evolution - religion and creation – science. It does a disservice to both.

So, according to you:

1. Creationism in its present form is not science.
2. Evolution in its present form is not science.


What else could you have meant by that? Are you honestly saying that when you were saying "and don&#39;t call evolution - religion and creation – science. It does a disservice to both," what you were in fact really saying was "Evolution is very much science?" How stupid do you think I am?

Why do you keep arguing the exact opposite of what you originally said, and then making a statement like it&#39;s what you&#39;ve been saying all along? When you said "and don&#39;t call evolution - religion and creation – science. It does a disservice to both," I assumed that was what you meant. You didn&#39;t get caught in a slip up and change the meaning of what you originally posted to avoid looking like a dickhead. It was me.. my bad.

[post=320087]Quoted post[/post]​

I hate to bring this back up after several days, but I am just getting back from a vacation. Dr. D. It would have helped if you had given the exact quote which I had no idea which quote you were refering to.

What I said there is misunderstood and too vaguely said by me. We all do that sometimes. I know what I meant. And I realize what you interpreted it to mean. They are not the same.

"And don&#39;t call evolution - religion and creation – science. It does a disservice to both"

What I meant was don&#39;t call evolution which is described as a mixture of religion and creation science. I realize you misunderstood what I meant. I hope you will accept that what I said was not clear, but I know what I meant and it is not what you interpreted it to mean.

Look at the sentence there are dashes. I meant what was inside the dashes to not be science. What is inside the dashes are the words religion and creation. Those two words put together are not science.


It would have helped if I had said, "And don&#39;t call so called "evolution" - religion and creation - science. The words so called with "evolution in quotes might have helped. Again I take full responsibility for that sentence not being clear. The fact the sentence is not clear is my fault, not yours.

Where I live there are people who are saying they believe in evolution, but believe in creation science. I was only trying to distinguish that if you believe in creation science, then you don&#39;t really believe the theory of evolution as first postulated by Charles Darwin and and since then refined by scientists through the decades since the theory first was published. And it will be further refined as time goes on. That is science. It is living. It is always discovering

I will take the fault for not making it clear. I am asking you to believe me that I simply didn&#39;t make it clear what I meant and I have not changed my position on this subject.

You have two choices. You can accept my statement that I didn&#39;t adequately explain my position or you can call me a fraud. Your choice.

I would prefer you accept my explanation. But if you want to believe that I said one thing that meant what you understood it to mean and that I am now lying to pretend that I believe one thing when I don&#39;t. Go ahead. I have no reason to not tell the truth in what I believe and what I meant.

I hope you will accept my apologies for not making that sentence clearer when I first posted. It wasn&#39;t until now that I understood which sentence you were refering to.

I have done all I know to do to convince you that I believe in the theory of evolution. It is a theory and as such is subject to change as scientists learn more. Certainly to find corpses of Neandertahl men frozen, but complete would answer a lot of questions. The discovery of some more humanoid fossils would help even more. But I also know that parts of the theory are indeed factual. They have been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. We have observed and mutated species and radically changed them. That is not theory. It is observed data which can&#39;t be refuted on a scientific basis: The turkey, new breeds of dogs, new strains of corn and other vegatables.



I hope we can end this topic now with an understanding that I failed to make my position clear in that sentence. And now we can leave this behind and begin a true friendship.

I offer that. I hope you will accept.