Evolution is now A FACT OF LIFE

[Sinyalan]

---

I can't think of any possible reasons why these creationists argue with not enough evidence. Oh btw, they have one.... faith. hehehe... sure is one good answer!

Well, good luck on your faith people...

[jamesmusslewhite]

cool story bro
anyway, the reason I asked you if you were really a biologist/botanist is because of what is below.
Please explain the text in bold.

Originally Posted by jamesmusslewhite
That is all we real scientist have right now is just opinions. This subject pushes the boundaries which are known and can be proven, so do not be angry that I can not answer what can not be proven. If science could actually prove there was no God, that the bible was fake, and evolution was Law, then there would not be 66 pages on this Forum of debate.
[/quote]
To the best of my knowledge, granted I have not sat in a biology class since 1994
that the "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" is, by it's definition,
still only a theory. Yet members want to elevate it to a undisputed fact, therefor
becoming a Law of Nature. What evidence has be discovered that shows inconclusively
that it is in fact accepted by the scientific community so as to adopt it. That it
has the same weight as Newtonian Mechanics or the Laws of Thermodynamics? Science can make no such claim ad hold it relegated to the mere status of Theory. Conjecture, possibility, unproven, debatable, and requiring more data and research, but not Law. That is like seeing a man parochute or use a glider and stating, "This Man can Fly" would you state it as theory or Law. If you remove the parachute of Glider and deturmed that maybe it was not flight, rather the product of a controlled fall. Would this be theory or Law?

Form a Hypotheses: "This Man can Fly"
Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "independent" and the other is "dependent."

Dependant Observation: If: This man has parachut/Glider. is related to. Then: This man can fly
Man + parachute = Successful
Man + Glider = Successful
Man - parachute = hospital bill (greater than or equal to death)
Man - Glider = hospital bill (greater than or equal to death)

The independent variable: Man will be dropped 10 times from 4,000 meters height from plane
Observation: man survived all 10 drops successful, man survived first 2 drops, died upon impact to earth 3 jump attempt.
Conclusion: When properly equipped then "This Man can Fly" may be true. With out proper equipment, death by sudden stop is a high probability. Unable to conduct further test – Test subject dead.
Formalized hypothesis: "This Man can Fly" is theory if all necessary variables are in place

Independent Observation: If: This man has parachute/Glider. is related to. Then: This man can fly
Man + parachute = Successful
Man + Glider = Successful
Man - parachute = he flies to designated area or accepted distance
Man - Glider = he flies to designated area or accepted distance

The independent variable: Man will be dropped 10 times from 4,000 meters height from plane
Conclushion: When properly equipped then "This can Fly" may be true. With out proper equipment, Even with all variables changed accepted flight parameter achieved. This man appeaser to meet all subscribed test successfully and achieved all flight parameters.
Formalized hypothesis: "This Man can Fly" is factual and meet all flight paramitors with all necessary variables are in place or changed. "This Man can Fly" is a true verifiable fact.

I know that this is a silly example but I have seen theories just as silly when written on paper. If the information is ont variably conclusive it stays a Theory. You can try to call it a Law but you have to challenge the science which restricts it. If the science does not support your statements then it is merely conjecture not based on verifiable facts.

We use to have an expression I learned at Texas A&M. You can call a rabbit a lion all you want, but if it is small with long ears, fluffy tail, looks like a rabbit, and eats lettuce and carrots; then it is probably is a rabbit. In other words, Just because you want to call something buy another name, it is still what it is. The Theory of Evolution, can be called law, but it is still just a theory.

[jamesmusslewhite]

I can't think of any possible reasons why these creationists argue with not enough evidence. Oh btw, they have one.... faith. hehehe... sure is one good answer!

Well, good luck on your faith people...

Well it does give me a warm fuzzy feeling all over...

[schmuck]

Originally Posted by jamesmusslewhite
That is all we real scientist have right now is just opinions. This subject pushes the boundaries which are known and can be proven, so do not be angry that I can not answer what can not be proven. If science could actually prove there was no God, that the bible was fake, and evolution was Law, then there would not be 66 pages on this Forum of debate.

To the best of my knowledge, granted I have not sat in a biology class since 1994
that the "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" is, by it's definition,
still only a theory. Yet members want to elevate it to a undisputed fact, therefor
becoming a Law of Nature. What evidence has be discovered that shows inconclusively
that it is in fact accepted by the scientific community so as to adopt it. That it
has the same weight as Newtonian Mechanics or the Laws of Thermodynamics? Science can make no such claim ad hold it relegated to the mere status of Theory. Conjecture, possibility, unproven, debatable, and requiring more data and research, but not Law. That is like seeing a man parochute or use a glider and stating, "This Man can Fly" would you state it as theory or Law. If you remove the parachute of Glider and deturmed that maybe it was not flight, rather the product of a controlled fall. Would this be theory or Law?

Form a Hypotheses: "This Man can Fly"
Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "independent" and the other is "dependent."

Dependant Observation: If: This man has parachut/Glider. is related to. Then: This man can fly
Man + parachute = Successful
Man + Glider = Successful
Man - parachute = hospital bill (greater than or equal to death)
Man - Glider = hospital bill (greater than or equal to death)

The independent variable: Man will be dropped 10 times from 4,000 meters height from plane
Observation: man survived all 10 drops successful, man survived first 2 drops, died upon impact to earth 3 jump attempt.
Conclusion: When properly equipped then "This can Fly" may be true. With out proper equipment, death by sudden stop is a high probility. Unable to conduct further test – Test subject dead.
Formalized hypothesis: "This Man can Fly" is theory if all necessary variables are in place

Independent Observation: If: This man has parachute/Glider. is related to. Then: This man can fly
Man + parachute = Successful
Man + Glider = Successful
Man - parachute = he flies to designated area or accepted distance
Man - Glider = he flies to designated area or accepted distance

The independent variable: Man will be dropped 10 times from 4,000 meters height from plane
Conclushion: When properly equipped then "This can Fly" may be true. With out proper equipment, Even with all variables changed accepted flight parameter achieved. This man appeaser to meet all subscribed test successfully and achieved all flight parameters.
Formalized hypothesis: "This Man can Fly" is factual and meet all flight paramitors with all necessary variables are in place or changed. "This Man can Fly"

I know that this is a silly example but I have seen theories just as silly when written on paper. If the information is ont variably conclusive it stays a Theory. You can try to call it a Law but you have to challenge the science which restricts it. If the science does not support your statements then it is merely conjecture not based on verifiable facts.

We use to have an expression I learned at Texas A&M. You can call a rabbit a lion all you want, but if it is small with long ears, fluffy tail, looks like a rabbit, and eats lettuce and carrots; then it is probably is a rabbit. In other words, Just because you want to cal something buy another name, it is still what it is. The Theory of Evolution, can be called law, but it is still just a theory.

So you actually downplay evolution because its "just a theory and not a law/fact".
Clearly you're not a biologist. A scientist should know what a Scientific Theory and a Scientific Law is.

Please take your fail somewhere else, and you're credibility(what's left of it).

[schmuck]

double post

[jamesmusslewhite]

So you actually downplay evolution because its "just a theory and not a law/fact".
Clearly you're not a biologist. A scientist should know what a Scientific Theory and a Scientific Law is.

Please take your fail somewhere else, and you're credibility(what's left of it).
No a biologist understands that fact are what they are. We can not be swayed by agenda, bias, or popular opinion. Are you a biologist? Have you ever bee a Biologist? Have you ever met a Biologist face to face? If you answer no then you actually have no idea what you are spouting off.

The problem you have with me is that I know too well the difference between Scientific Theory and Scientific Law really is. You insult me because I will not step away from the grounded verifiable science into the realm of Sci-fi. I live in the world of Scientific textbooks, and you want answers from the realm of comic books, sci-fi movies, and TV fantasizes.

I am an honest biologist who just dares to raise the doubts from some of the flawed and bad theories imposed by evolutionist which are pushed by special intrest and hidden agendas. I am just not your type of biologist who will ignore those problem areas and assist you in your disillusionment. You can ignore me, scoff, insult me, even call me a bad biologist, or a lier; this does not chance me in one way or another. I am amazed that members think I care if I am called names or insulted. Guys, I am from Texas where men act like men and do not have all soft and touchy-feely egos. Act like a little girl in Texas and they will treat you like a little girl. Members can insult me because I was raised to be a man. I am not going to insult you back, because you get your feelings hurt too easily. I am just going to smile and ignore you. Even if you choose to conduct yourself like a spoiled girl-child, I will treat you like a man whether you deserve respect of not. I am what I am, and you are what you are.

There are those who have the intelligences to listen and absorb all facts and information. Who will actually do research and look for themselves who are driven by the pursuit of knowledge, and are not those just trying to be proven right. I post for those people. The truthful intellectuals, and not those who are just trying to sound intelligent. Have any more insults there chief. And Thank you for the insults, I try to answer you questions and you want to slap my face. What about me scares you so much, that I just might right?

[schmuck]

Please, indulge me. What is a Scientific Theory and a Scientific Law.
Is one higher than the other? Will a theory mature to become a law?

Go on, show us how much of a "biologist" you are.

[bluedes]

gosh, its been 68 pages already..

for what its worth, all this evolution talk is probably going to crumble sooner or later..
from what i've learned in the past couple of months, there is no credible proof that states darwinian evolution is a fact.. its still basically all conjecture that "seems" to point towards a probable proof..

the only fact of the matter is that we are all still based on the same genetic building blocks only rearranged in different manners. if you talk of evolution in the darwinian sense, you're supposed to "acquire" new traits.. but what is there to "acquire" when you're still using the same building blocks? its just a matter of different configurations being able to "express" that trait fast enough in order to "adapt" to the environment, otherwise, you go extinct.

it would look like we came from bacteria (or single-celled organisms), but really now.. that's just a lopsided interpretation.. we do not come from bacteria.. we ARE the bacteria who just "transformed" into higher organisms as this so-called evolution took place.. "transform" because nothing is new.. every living thing is basically the same.. just different genetic expressions..

if another type of nucleotide were to be added to our preset 4 (A-T, G-C), then this evolution concept will probably be more credible..

these are just my thoughts..

this coincides with the theosophical interpretation that we are the lemurians that "supposedly" went extinct in the 5th cycle of human "evolution"..

[jamesmusslewhite]

Please, indulge me. What is a Scientific Theory and a Scientific Law.
Is one higher than the other? Will a theory mature to become a law?

Go on, show us how much of a "biologist" you are.

Scientific Theory, pl., -ries.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Scientific Law - is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning.

differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain scientific laws. Laws can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new data, as with Bode's law or the biogenetic law.

Lets try this example real time:
Scientific Theory - ( Forum Posting Theory) I should be able to post among intellectuals and receive respectful thought provoking conversation based on true and actual verifiable facts.

Scientific Law - (Forum Posting Law) When I post a comment some will respond with conjecture, bias comments, based on personal belief will not actually based in facts or any process of inductive reasoning. That it will confrontational and insulting.

[schmuck]

^ please spare me the baby talk.

is a theory any lesser than a law? does a theory mature into a law?