When is a theory 'just a theory'? (page 6)

Fisherman

No confusion now.

That may be the case -or maybe not if evolution comes up with something new

cofty

There is controversy whether it can be falsified or not. - Fish

Of course it can be falsified. Every scientific theory is falsifiable otherwise it isn't science.

God-did-it is not falsifiable which is why it isn't science.

A rabbit fossil in pre-cambrian rock would prove evolution to be wrong.

In 150 years it has proved impossible to find evidence that shows evolution to be wrong. You have more chance of proving the earth is flat.

There is also controversy about evolution apparently contradicting the second law of thermodynamics.

No there isn't. That just something that creationists tell each other. It demonstrates a woeful understanding of basic science.

There is also controversy whether or not evolution can coexist with enthropy.

All life is a temporary local reversal of entropy. There is no conflict between evolution and entropy.

Some people choose to believe in evolution.

I don't believe in evolution. I just accept it as the fact it is.

cofty

not agreeing with a conclusion or theory does not make one unreasonable - Fish

Rejecting basic science despite knowing absolutely nothing about it is the definition of unreasonable and wilfully ignorant.

Mephis

That may be the case -or maybe not if evolution comes up with something new.
It's creationism which uses magic to explain how genes get where they are. Evolutionary theory is quite happy to explain it by things having sex. This stuff is on the level of a paternity test at court, or the evidence for how closely related to other primates modern humans are. It's that solid. The hard part was getting the DNA to examine. And now figuring out when the sex was taking place, and whether it was directly between modern humans and Neanderthals, and where it was taking place, and... lots of interesting questions still left. But it happened. :)

Anders Andersen

@Fisherman,

Your very one-sided way of reading and bolding the quote shows you're not willing to be honest and understand what the writer really said. Your Watchtower is showing.

Thomson remarks: "Change over time is a fact, and descent from common ancestors is based on such unassailable [meaning undeniable] logic that we act as though it is a fact.
Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution

So your own quote shows that the evidence is so overwhelming that evolution cannot be denied, and that those who actually know the subject best consider it a fact for all intents and purposes.

And here you are trying to bend a statement that confirms the robustness of the theory of evolution into a basis on which you can deny the undeniable.

Besides that, you have artfully tried dodge the questions I submitted:

If you cannot accept evolution because it is 'not a fact' while the evidence that supports it makes those who are experts in biology consider it a fact, on what basis are you accepting Bronze age myths as fact, maybe even absolute truth?

Is the evidence (if any) that you accept for any gods' existence more compelling than the evidence that supports evolution?

Is there any evidence that your specific God exists?

Can you present that evidence please?

Can anyone consider the existence of God a fact more than evolution can be considered a fact?

BTW, please don't bother replying with more of your word soup. I really don't care about that quote, or about your tries to make words change meaning.

Unless you have a direct (and somewhat readable) answer to (one of) my questions I probably won't read your reaction.

Have a good life!

Anders Andersen

About the entropy: earth is not a closed system.

The sun is constantly sending energy to earth, and heat is constantly radiating from earth into space.

Here is some reading material for those who wish to educate themselves:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

Fisherman

lead evidence based lives

And unlike cofty, on a scientific level I am not qualified to advocate or refute evolution . All I can do is to decide for myself whether I choose to believe it or not. It is very easy for a judge or a jury or a prosecutor, enjoying immunity, to decide on something when their lives do not depend on it -but if it did ?! -Romans 1:20

cofty

Oh I have an idea - Read some books!

Fisherman

please don't bother replying with more of your word soup

You sound like an alligator. You are an all mouth google cut and paster: No one has to make any statement, but if they do, what they say is subject to challenge.

Fisherman

Of course it can be falsified. Every scientific theory is falsifiable otherwise it isn't science.

Argue with those that disagree.

No there isn't. That just something that creationists tell each other. It demonstrates a woeful understanding of basic science.
All life is a temporary local reversal of entropy. There is no conflict between evolution and entropy.

cofty the full of bolony pseudo-scientist that knows.

I just accept it as the fact it is.

Double talk for believe. Accepting it as fact does not make it such.

knowing absolutely nothing about it

Funny what cofty claims to know about what others know and what disciplines they have.

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

Share this