creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

THEORY
speculation: abstract thought or contemplation

Idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture

Scientific theory= a guess, speculation, conjecture, or belief.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
O&C conspiracy has, as of late, become relatively inactive
why?
because every argument for creationism and intelligent design has been soundly refuted

so, please
admit scientific defeat
sure, creationism can be philosophically sound
but you have lost in the realm of science

I agree with you as far as biblical creationism is concerned. However, ID has no where near been refuted, nor have various other theories of creation.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by spiritconnections]

Originally posted by thehumbleone

THEORY
speculation: abstract thought or contemplation

Idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture

Scientific theory= a guess, speculation, conjecture, or belief.

Nah, that's the common usage of the word 'theory'.

I'm talking about 'scientific theory'. It's number 1 below.

the·o·ry (th-r, thîr) KEY

NOUN:
pl. the·o·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

Evolution is a fact and a theory. It is a fact that life changes over time, natural selection and random mutation (and drift etc) constitute the theory that explains the facts.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Steven J. Gould

I think it's important to remember one thing: science can explain how the multiverse came into existence, but it cannot touch on why or the origin of how.

The problem with taking Darwinian evolution into the realm of philosophy is that science cannot explain anything beyond the how with the tools of science - mainly controlled experiments. Science oversteps its bounds when it claims that evolution points to atheism.

Originally posted by spiritconnections
I agree with you as far as biblical creationism is concerned. However, ID has no where near been refuted, nor have various other theories of creation.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by spiritconnections]

Only because ID is unfalsifiable and therefore not science.

I think it's important to remember one thing: science can explain how the multiverse came into existence, but it cannot touch on why or the origin of how.

The problem with taking Darwinian evolution into the realm of philosophy is that science cannot explain anything beyond the how with the tools of science - mainly controlled experiments. Science oversteps its bounds when it claims that evolution points to atheism.

No-one here has said it does. There will always be a gap for those who have an inclination to place their omnipotent being of choice.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by melatonin]

Evolution is a fact and a theory. It is a fact that life changes over time, natural selection and random mutation (and drift etc) constitute the theory that explains the facts.

HA HA, that's the funniest one I've heard. "it's a fact and a theory" AKA "I don't want to admit I'm guessing, so I'll play with words to confuse people."

What will these guys come up with next?

Originally posted by thehumbleone
HA HA, that's the funniest one I've heard. "it's a fact and a theory" AKA "I don't want to admit I'm guessing, so I'll play with words to confuse people."

What will these guys come up with next?

Humble, I think there's a Groucho Marx quote about how it's better to say nothing on occassion.

If you bother to read the quote from S.J. Gould you'll see what the distinction means. It is a fact we see life changing over time, we see new species appearing, we have evidence of biological evolution, we have fossil evidence etc etc etc. Those are facts.

Then we have the scientific theory to explain the facts and link them all together into a coherent explanation that makes further predictions.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by thehumbleone
HA HA, that's the funniest one I've heard. "it's a fact and a theory" AKA "I don't want to admit I'm guessing, so I'll play with words to confuse people."

What will these guys come up with next?

Humble, I think there's a Groucho Marx quote about how it's better to say nothing on occassion.

If you bother to read the quote from S.J. Gould you'll see what the distinction means. It is a fact we see life changing over time, we see new species appearing, we have evidence of biological evolution, we have fossil evidence etc etc etc. Those are facts.

Then we have the scientific theory to explain the facts and link them all together into a coherent explanation that makes further predictions.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by melatonin]

Yes, life changes over time, can't argue with that.

We have NEVER seen macro-evolution, the only thing we have proof of is micro-evolution, that means a change within a species.

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Yes, life changes over time, can't argue with that.

We have NEVER seen macro-evolution, the only thing we have proof of is micro-evolution, that means a change within a species.

Except when it does produce a new species...

Claim CB910:
No new species have been observed.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1986. The vanishing case for evolution. Impact 156 (Jun.). www.icr.org...

Response:

1. New species have arisen in historical times. For example:


A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).


Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venerial tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).


Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

.....

www.talkorigins.org...

Lots more to read via the link as well.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Dock6


:yawn:

Well, we can agree with something. Science probably won't come up with a 'theory of everything' for some time, if ever.

The rest is just a rant against the MOST powerful tool to understanding the real-world we have. Yes, science makes mistakes; yes, we don't not know everything; yes, we work at the boundaries of ignorance which means evidence does change our knowledge.

When private spiritual revelation can actually answer anything useful, then we might question its power.

As for god being the 'only explanation', it is actually a non-explanation.

I think both science and personal revelation reveal useful things, but in different categories. Science typically answer quite well the "how" questions, and spirituality typically answers quite well the "why" questions. Why must there be an either/or scenario?

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Yes, life changes over time, can't argue with that.

We have NEVER seen macro-evolution, the only thing we have proof of is micro-evolution, that means a change within a species.

Except when it does produce a new species...

Claim CB910:
No new species have been observed.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1986. The vanishing case for evolution. Impact 156 (Jun.). www.icr.org...

Response:

1. New species have arisen in historical times. For example:


A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).


Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venerial tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).


Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

.....

www.talkorigins.org...

Lots more to read via the link as well.

Once again, this is NOT proof of one species changing into another.

Anyone can see that plants can be tampered with through cross pollination, people do it to make new flowers, nothing special there.

What I want is proof of one animal changing into another, stop trying to hide from the fact that no such proof exist.

What is listed about the mosquito is not proof of one species changing into another, a mosquito will always be a mosquito.

according to the way this website puts it, a black person, Asian person, white person would all be considered different species, when in fact a human will always be a human.

Just because people look different doesn't make them a different species, unless you're one of those people that believes in eugenics.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by thehumbleone]

thehumbleone, speciation means ONE SPECIES CHANGING TO ANOTHER
there is no other form of speciation
we saw it in mysquitos
macro-organisms
is that not good enough for you?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
thehumbleone, speciation means ONE SPECIES CHANGING TO ANOTHER
there is no other form of speciation
we saw it in mysquitos
macro-organisms
is that not good enough for you?

Evolution is all about speciation, and it is fairly certain that speciation occurs as has been mentioned from another poster previous to this post. The "power" behind speciation is purely speculative, and should not be the domain of science if it cannot be proven scientifically (which, I believe, it cannot).

Science deals with physical evidence whereas spirituality deals with intuitive evidence. They are of different kinds, but neither is more important that the other.

Originally posted by spiritconnections
Science deals with physical evidence whereas spirituality deals with intuitive evidence. They are of different kinds, but neither is more important that the other.

In your opinion. In the real-world it seems to be rather different.

People like Sylvia Brown have little insight into anything useful. They prey on people in times of need.

When revelation can provide anything objectively useful, then you may have a point. Otherwise it's just more woo for the wooful.

Maybe you can outline the 'power' behind, for example, allopatric speciation.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by spiritconnections
Science deals with physical evidence whereas spirituality deals with intuitive evidence. They are of different kinds, but neither is more important that the other.

In your opinion. In the real-world it seems to be rather different.

People like Sylvia Brown have little insight into anything useful. They prey on people in times of need.

When revelation can provide anything objectively useful, then you may have a point. Otherwise it's just more woo for the wooful.

Maybe you can outline the 'power' behind, for example, allopatric speciation.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by melatonin]

Yes, in my opinion. In whose real world? Perhaps in your real world it seems to be rather different, but in the lives of many, the opposite is true. I have said nothing in support of the likes of Sylvia Brown - why are you bringing her into this conversation? Would you like me to bring in a wacko fringe from the scientific community as representative of your stance?

The power behind all speciation is the Mind of the Spirit (in my opinion).

Originally posted by spiritconnections
I have said nothing in support of the likes of Sylvia Brown - why are you bringing her into this conversation? Would you like me to bring in a wacko fringe from the scientific community as representative of your stance?

The power behind all speciation is the Mind of the Spirit (in my opinion).

Mind of what spirit? Does this spirit cause mutations? So really rather than 'goddidit', you say 'themindofthespiritdidit'.

Mutations are the result of an imperfect copying method and other chemical and biological mechanisms. Does the 'mind of the spirit' underlie chemistry and physics? I always thought it was Nac-Mac Feegles behind intelligent falling.

Sylvia Brown is a psychic who 'channels' spirits like you claim to do. She makes a lot of dosh from her supposed abilities. She is well-known and no more whacko than most other people who 'commune' with spirits.

And, yeah, science makes no more contribution to people's lives than woo. When a person has a health condition, it's always better to see a spiritualist than a medical doctor who bases their treatment on effective science-based methods. When we want to figure out who commited a crime, Psychics provide as good an answer than that from forensic scientists; Building a bridge? Mission to Mars? Curing AIDS? New neurological therapies? Explaining Global Warming? IVF? Consult your local spiritualist.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Once again, this is NOT proof of one species changing into another.

Anyone can see that plants can be tampered with through cross pollination, people do it to make new flowers, nothing special there.

What I want is proof of one animal changing into another, stop trying to hide from the fact that no such proof exist.

What is listed about the mosquito is not proof of one species changing into another, a mosquito will always be a mosquito.

What are you on about humble?

You said there was no evidence of evolution outside of species (i.e. only change within species has been observed). I then provide evidence of new species. A species is a reproductively isolated population of organisms, we have evidence of new species evolving.

You seem to be conflating the useless biblical term 'kind' with the scientific term 'species'.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by melatonin]

according to the way this website puts it, a black person, Asian person, white person would all be considered different species, when in fact a human will always be a human.

Just because people look different doesn't make them a different species, unless you're one of those people that believes in eugenics.

Did you even read this?

just because there's a different looking mosquito, that doesn't make it a different species, it is still a mosquito.

So i guess you would put the different "races" of human beings into different species?

You're not to far off from the Nazis.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by thehumbleone]

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Did you even read this?

So just because there's a different looking mosquito, that doesn't make it a different species, it is still a mosquito.

So i guess you would put the different "races" of human beings into different species?

You're not to far off from the Nazis.

No, for your sake I ignored it.

Black people are not a different species, they are Homo Sapiens like you and me.

There is no reproductive isolation, we can reproduce with no problem.

you still don't understand what I'm getting at do you?

When a mosquito changes into a bee, then I will call that proof.

When an ape changes into a human, then That will be considered proof.

Heck, I think an apple tree changing into an orange tree is far more likely.

And don't tell me "it takes millions of years" blah blah that's your problem, not mine, don't make up excuses for why you can't find the missing links, you're problem again.