Best reason for the holiday season

[wxtornado]

i'll bet ten of 'em weren't from 2ndA though

I bet you're right

 

[This_person]

So I could say that "There is a zxrtqwer that exists in the world", and this is not false, because it's unproven? This is what I am not understanding.

EXACTLY! You can't prove it, doesn't mean it's not true. To justifiably say it's not true, it must be DISproved. Otherwise, it's just another hypothesis.

For example, the extinct fish found a few years ago alive.

The thought was, it was dead. Believed to be proven true, because there was no evidence of it existing. Low and behold, evidence. Science was only off by a few million years

Can't say something's not true just because you can't prove it true.

 

[This_person]

Theories aren't "proven". Proofs are for mathematics.

Not really. To call something true or not takes proof, as you've asked for with God.

Otherwise, all theories would be equal, unless DISproved, don't you think?

 

[wxtornado]

Theories that are proven are Laws. It is not the law of evolution. It is the theory of evolution. If you don't know the difference, then I think your scientific reasoning is in question.

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. "Theory" and "fact" aren't rungs on a ladder of increasing certainty.

A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary].

The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness.

 

[tommyjones]

I'll agree that there is strong circumstancial evidence for the environment conditioning humans over a long period of time, and that this conditioning supports the concept of evolution.

Let's see if other things do.

People born in very cold climates have thicker "fur"? Nope.
People born further from the equator have different circadian rythms? Nope.


Two quickies, don't fit the profile. That doesn't mean that the hypothesis is true nor false. It just means we have support, and lack of support.

we dont need fur to livee in cold climates because we kill animals and wear their warm skins, have since caveman times.....

circadian rythms can be changed over ones lifetime. i know when i worked nightshift mine was all effed on the weekends.

 

[wxtornado]

Great. Who from? Remember, I excluded atheists because I expect them to be in agreement with you and be your cheer squad.

I'd rather not say to protect those who might not want you to know.

 

[This_person]

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. "Theory" and "fact" aren't rungs on a ladder of increasing certainty.

A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary].

The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness.

So, Intelligent Design (not Christian creationism, but the theory that there is or was a superior being which "built" the fundamentals of life into our universe), being a "coherent group of general propositions used as principle of explaination for a class of phenomena" would be equal to the theory of evolution - and thus as easily declared FACT, right?

 

[wxtornado]

Can't say something's not true just because you can't prove it true.

Okey doke. The bible was written by manatees. By your logic, if you can't prove that this is not true, then it's true. True?

 

[wxtornado]

So, Intelligent Design (not Christian creationism, but the theory that there is or was a superior being which "built" the fundamentals of life into our universe), being a "coherent group of general propositions used as principle of explaination for a class of phenomena" would be equal to the theory of evolution - and thus as easily declared FACT, right?

I see you're not reading my posts. Let me know if I'm wasting my time with you, seriously.

 

[This_person]

we dont need fur to livee in cold climates because we kill animals and wear their warm skins, have since caveman times.....

circadian rythms can be changed over ones lifetime. i know when i worked nightshift mine was all effed on the weekends.

Well, now wait a minute. If I need a bigger heart in a higher altitude, so therefore I developed one (over hundreds or thousands of years), why wouldn't I have developed fur to not need the animal's fur?

If I'm going to have light for weeks to months a year, why is my circadian rythm the same as the human who's light/dark ratio is vastly different? Shouldn't those things have evolved as well - survival of the fittest?

I'm not denying the proofs you've provided. I'm merely providing more evidence that tends to disprove. Thus, it's a theory, not a fact, because there is evidence for which it cannot explain. Once it can fully explain all aspects, it's a fact. Until then, it's a theory. A good one, well thought out with GREAT circumstancial evidence. But, a theory nonetheless.

 

[This_person]

If you can't prove that this is not true, then it's true. True?

No, you're missing the big flick.
There are three potential status.

True, false, not proven either way.

If you can't prove it true, that doesn't mean it's false.

If you can't prove it's false, that doesn't mean it's true.

If you can prove it's true, it's true.

If you can prove it's false, it's false.

If you can't prove either, it's not proven (a hypothesis).

 

[Xaquin44]

Well, now wait a minute. If I need a bigger heart in a higher altitude, so therefore I developed one (over hundreds or thousands of years), why wouldn't I have developed fur to not need the animal's fur?

because draping animal fur over you negates the need to evolve it. You can't simply drape something over your heart to more easily live in higher altitudes.

 

[tommyjones]

Well, now wait a minute. If I need a bigger heart in a higher altitude, so therefore I developed one (over hundreds or thousands of years), why wouldn't I have developed fur to not need the animal's fur?
.

i dont think they would have developed larger hearts if they had started using suplemental oxygen thousands of years ago like they did wering furs.

 

[wxtornado]

No, you're missing the big flick.
There are three potential status.

True, false, not proven either way.

If you can't prove it true, that doesn't mean it's false.

If you can't prove it's false, that doesn't mean it's true.

If you can prove it's true, it's true.

If you can prove it's false, it's false.

If you can't prove either, it's not proven (a hypothesis).

Clear as mud, thanks

 

[2ndAmendment]

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. "Theory" and "fact" aren't rungs on a ladder of increasing certainty.

A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary].

The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness.

Just because something is proposed does not make it true. It was proposed that the earth was flat. The theory was that the earth was flat. The theory was disproved. The proposition was incorrect.

A theory is not a fact. Science does not call it the fact of evolution or the law of evolution. Science calls it the theory of evolution. There is a proposition that life evolved. That proposition is accepted by some, even many, as was the flat earth theory. The proposition that life evolved has not been proven.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I'd rather not say to protect those who might not want you to know.

So it is unproven that people other than atheists like your posts.

 

[Xaquin44]

Just because something is proposed does not make it true. It was proposed that the earth was flat. The theory was that the earth was flat. The theory was disproved. The proposition was incorrect.

A theory is not a fact. Science does not call it the fact of evolution or the law of evolution. Science calls it the theory of evolution. There is a proposition that life evolved. That proposition is accepted by some, even many, as was the flat earth theory. The proposition that life evolved has not been proven.

Evolution has been proven. The theory is what ALL it applies to. We have in our time seen things evolve (those english moths I posted in another thread are a great example) and we have seen evidence of even more. The theory is what it applies to not that it happens or doesn't.

 

[wxtornado]

Just because something is proposed does not make it true. It was proposed that the earth was flat. The theory was that the earth was flat. The theory was disproved. The proposition was incorrect.

A theory is not a fact. Science does not call it the fact of evolution or the law of evolution. Science calls it the theory of evolution. There is a proposition that life evolved. That proposition is accepted by some, even many, as was the flat earth theory. The proposition that life evolved has not been proven.

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term THEORY is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain HOW life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

 

[wxtornado]

So it is unproven that people other than atheists like your posts.

I have the evidence, and can easily prove it.

 

[Xaquin44]

So it is unproven that people other than atheists like your posts.

pfft .... so he doesn't want you to karma bomb a bunch of people. I wouldn't tell you either.