Dubstepforum.com

Umm, alright. I don't think you understand me. I welcome any evidence that attempts to falsify evolution, as part of the scientific method. Holding out for proof isn't a bad thing, but evolution is a theory. Most of the evidence against it comes from Flood Geologists and other nonscientific realms.

Notice how even though these "errors/damning evidence" have been exposed by the creationists, evolution still ranks as a theory among scientists? It's still widely accepted at being mostly accurate. Decades of research and evidence cannot be trumped easily.

I never want to censor anything! If people want to cite Dr. Oompa Loompa's research into Noah's pet T-rex on the ark, I welcome it. Any and all discussion is encouraged. I'm sorry you think I'm wanting to censor things or ignore evidence against evolution, this is most definitely not the case. There's much more to be learned.

knell wrote:Decades of research and evidence cannot be trumped easily.

You mean Abandoned easily. When a theory youved spent an entire career convincing yourself and the public is fact ultimately isnt, that ego's a hard thing to swallow.

knell wrote:Umm, alright. I don't think you understand me. I welcome any evidence that attempts to falsify evolution, as part of the scientific method. Holding out for proof isn't a bad thing, but evolution is a theory. Most of the evidence against it comes from Flood Geologists and other nonscientific realms.

Notice how even though these "errors/damning evidence" have been exposed by the creationists, evolution still ranks as a theory among scientists? It's still widely accepted at being mostly accurate. Decades of research and evidence cannot be trumped easily.

I never want to censor anything! If people want to cite Dr. Oompa Loompa's research into Noah's pet T-rex on the ark, I welcome it.

what i meant by 'falsifiable' evidence is evidence which evolutionary theory should be able to show in order to prove it once and for all but has so far failed to do so...

you ignore that aspect of it as a theory

i believe that for the moment it is the strongest theory we have, i also simply dont believe any creationist argument or religious argument

but till its conclusively proved true its a theory and as such must be treated like one

ketamine wrote:

knell wrote:Decades of research and evidence cannot be trumped easily.

You mean Abandoned easily. When a theory youved spent an entire career convincing yourself and the public is fact ultimately isnt, that ego's a hard thing to swallow.

thats true also but a)what you are saying isn't equivalent to what Knell is saying in this case and b) purporting the values of what is and isn't fact, when you clearly ignore them for the most case is hardly a solid base for extolling the virtues of whatever theory you may be allying yourself with...

noam wrote: what i meant by 'falsifiable' evidence is evidence which evolutionary theory should be able to show in order to prove it once and for all but has so far failed to do so...

you ignore that aspect of it as a theory.

wha...? You've lost me. Evolution is a theory because it describes observed facts. It was drawn up by inductive logic. It's not a guess, it's a guidebook as to why and how things happen the way they do based on the information we're presented. It documents observations, it's just exactly how they occurred that can be picked apart with new data, but all that will do is make it a stronger theory, not invalidate it.

What's next, should I start a thread called "Gravity" where we pick apart Hamiltonian mechanics and wonder what discovery will make our baseball float up instead of drop down?

Sheesh, this forum sometimes....

knell wrote:

noam wrote: what i meant by 'falsifiable' evidence is evidence which evolutionary theory should be able to show in order to prove it once and for all but has so far failed to do so...

you ignore that aspect of it as a theory.

wha...? You've lost me. Evolution is a theory because it describes observed facts. It was drawn up by inductive logic. It's not a guess, it's a guidebook as to why things happen the way they do. It documents observations, it's just exactly how they occurred that can be picked apart, but all that will do is make it a stronger theory, not invalidate it.

What's next, should I start a thread called "Gravity" where we pick apart Hamiltonian mechanics and wonder what will make our baseball float up instead of drop down?

Sheesh, this forum sometimes....

what im saying is that if it was conclusively shown to be correct it would be a Law, thats all im saying

you cant go round calling things Laws which aren't

thats it.

thats my point.

but im not saying that its entirely impervious to refutation. thats my second point.

edit: actually how the fuck did i end up having to write ^^^^ THAT out?!? all i was saying originally was that you sound like a cock-end when you start preaching SCIENCE to a SCIENTIST and it pays to keep a line of discourse open with people who maintain all types of views

i don't even...

No one is going around calling evolution a law, and if they are, they're using the word incorrectly. The word theory in the scientific context does not imply uncertainty.

Laws describe, theories explain. Both of which contain facts. They are two separate things that serve two separate purposes.

I don't know how to be any clearer.

just dont matter

you guys realize this after 9 pages?

For the few creationists left who actually think there's some truth to the idea of Noah and his Ark, here's a set of funny videos:

borrowed wrote:you guys realize this after 9 pages?

yes?

This thread has evolved into something special, although initially it wasn't very intelligently designed.

Charco wrote:For the few creationists left who actually think there's some truth to the idea of Noah and his Ark, here's a set of funny videos:

Nonstampcollector's videos are hilarious

Dub_freak wrote: Nonstampcollector's videos are hilarious

Nail on head every time.

Pedro Sánchez wrote:This thread has evolved into something special, although initially it wasn't very intelligently designed.

bRRRz wrote:

Pedro Sánchez wrote:This thread has evolved into something special, although initially it wasn't very intelligently designed.

I think that about 80% of SNH threads can be used as evidence for evolution.

noam wrote:what im saying is that if it was conclusively shown to be correct it would be a Law, thats all im saying

That's like saying that music theory is a 'guess' or a 'hunch', it's not, it's a description of an occurence. The theory of evolution therefore describes an occurence (According to wikipedia: Evolution (or more specifically biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals). This is undisputed. The exact mechanics however, are under dispute. If we ever know the exact mechanics by which they all work, evolution would still be a theory, and not any more 'true'.

We know that gravity works, but if let's say, IF, scientists didn't know how it worked, does it mean it's not happening? Same thing here.

A scientific law and a scientific theory are equally true and both equally falsifiable. They're two different constructs with two different purposes in the scientific realm. For example, there is the Law of Hardy-Weinberg, but this has NEVER HAPPENED. However, it explains a theoratical natural occurrence. It's a law that works according to a mathematical model.

Basically, it's not called 'the hypothesis of evolution' for a reason.

Evolution isnt theory it is a FACT, anyone who is too stupid or blinded by religious beliefs isnt going to accept it, leave them to be misguided idiots. Serious question though, what came first, the chicken or the egg???

JBoy wrote:Evolution isnt theory it is a FACT, anyone who is too stupid or blinded by religious beliefs isnt going to accept it, leave them to be misguided idiots. Serious question though, what came first, the chicken or the egg???