It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by immortal coil
the missing link in human evolution.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by immortal coil
And I think you're confusing a theory with a law. If evolution was 100% agreed upon, it would be a law.
No, you are the confused one. The word theory in scientific jargon has nothing to do with something being true or not. Germ theory of disease is also "just a theory", and it is a fact. Evolution is a fact, described by the theory of evolution.
In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. 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. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing scientific laws from principles that arise merely accidentally because of the constant conjunction of one thing and another.
A law 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 is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.
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.
A law 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.
In other words, not enough evidence has arisen to advance the "Theory of Evolution" into a stage where it becomes a law. Trust me, it's a big enough issues that it would be cleared up if at all possible.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Originally posted by fonenyc
Should "evolution", still a theory, be considered a sign of stupidity? Maybe its a little of both. Who knows for sure? LOL
aka, I know you are but what am I.
I think we moved past that style of discussion after age 10..clearly some haven't
Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.
A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.
VOMERONASAL ORGAN A tiny pit on each side of the septum is lined with nonfunctioning chemoreceptors. They may be all that remains of a once extensive pheromone-detecting ability.
EXTRINSIC EAR MUSCLES This trio of muscles most likely made it possible for prehominids to move their ears independently of their heads, as rabbits and dogs do. We still have them, which is why most people can learn to wiggle their ears.
WISDOM TEETH Early humans had to chew a lot of plants to get enough calories to survive, making another row of molars helpful. Only about 5 percent of the population has a healthy set of these third molars.
Yes, the militant YouTube atheists that are so militant that they 'preach' by...talking about how stupid creationists are
Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by Jim Scott
God said he made the world in 6 days, He didn't say He did it in 6 consecutive days. it could have took Him 1 day to form the universe.
then after billions of years after the universe sufficiently expanded, he created all the stars, that took him 1 day.
after the stars matured and were strong enough to produce heat for the planets, He created all the planets in the universe, that took Him one day.
after millions of years when the planets finished fully forming he added plants and water and atmosphere to all the planets that He wanted life on, that took Him 1 day.
after millions of years when all the planets where to his liking and self sufficient, He added life, such as animals and fish to the planets He wanted life on, that took Him one day.
and then possibly, when everything thru millions of years of life cycles was perfect, he added humans. that took Him one day.
So, it is possible for God to make the universe and everything in it in 6 days.
edit on 6-12-2010 by randomname because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
Do you believe that creationists are stupid?
If so i take it you have all of the answers to to life?
Untill you can prove evolution
or creation theory absolutely i dont think you can take the moral high ground
(which for you seems to be a mountain, and i will laugh heartily when you fall of).
I dont want you coming back with ooooh Creationists said that or Creationists said that...
give me proof, one way or another!