By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory?



 Religions > Atheism > By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Richard Dawkins"
Date: 23 Nov 2005 05:05:00 AM
Object: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory?
By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? A scientific
theory is defined as a "theory that explains scientific observations;
scientific theories must be falsifiable." What this means is that in order
for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist a test that can prove
it either right or wrong. Without putting the theory to a test, one can
never prove it-either true or false! For example, one could observe an
orange sunset, and then theorize that the sun is always orange. There exists
a means to either prove or disprove this theory, therefore making it a valid
theory. Of course, if a theory is proven wrong, it should no longer be
considered a valid theory. In this case, if one continues to watch the sky,
they will see changes in its color. If the same standards are applied to the
theory of evolution, we must fulfill these two conditions. Evolution must be
able to be observed and also be able to be put to the test. Because there
have not been any observed examples of macro-evolution on record, the first
condition is not met. Those who support this theory state that most major
evolutionary changes happened millions of years ago. Past events are not
testable and, therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable. Recall the
logical fallacies discussed at many philosophic websites. When something is
dated very old to prove a point, we are dealing with what is called
chronological snobbery. Make no mistake, evolutionists know that they are
not dealing with either a scientific fact or theory, and must resort to
logical fallacies to validate their claims. This is best described by Dr.
Michael Denton, a proclaimed evolutionist: "His [Darwin's] general theory
that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive
accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time,
a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct FACTUAL support and
very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates
would have us believe."As we have seen, evolution is definitely not a fact.
It is not even a scientific theory. As Dr. Denton has stated, it is nothing
more than a "highly speculative hypothesis." Can you imagine something so
contested, even by those who profess to believe it, taught in schools as
fact? It leaves one to wonder, if it is not a fact or a theory, how exactly
is it scientific?
.

User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu"

Title: Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? 23 Nov 2005 08:40:46 AM
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> suddenly spluttered:

By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? A scientific
theory is defined as a "theory that explains scientific observations;
scientific theories must be falsifiable." What this means is that in order
for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist a test that can prove
it either right or wrong. Without putting the theory to a test, one can
never prove it-either true or false!

Keep digging....

For example, one could observe an
orange sunset, and then theorize that the sun is always orange. There exists
a means to either prove or disprove this theory, therefore making it a valid
theory. Of course, if a theory is proven wrong, it should no longer be
considered a valid theory. In this case, if one continues to watch the sky,
they will see changes in its color.

You're nearly there, keep digging........

If the same standards are applied to the
theory of evolution, we must fulfill these two conditions. Evolution must be
able to be observed and also be able to be put to the test.

CLANK!

Because there
have not been any observed examples of macro-evolution on record, the first
condition is not met. Those who support this theory state that most major
evolutionary changes happened millions of years ago. Past events are not
testable and, therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable.

That's enough.
Tell me, troll: Do you enjoy making yourself look stupid? The past
cannot be observed happening? And this is your/creationism's defence
against science? A shameless piece of deliberate obfuscation and
semantic misconduct. Frankly this looks deliberate, which makes you a
brazen liar.
Google Malebolge, it's your afterlife ;-)
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.

User: "Troy"

Title: Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? 23 Nov 2005 02:11:57 PM
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in message
news:LLSgf.27$LR4.4172@news.uswest.net...

By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? A scientific

<snipped ludicrous prattle>
I must say, I thought at first that Richard was actually an atheist out for
laughs. Now, I am positive he is not an atheist. I am 100% sure that he has
an incredibly low IQ. I know a couple of high functioning mentally retarded
individuals so I know it's possible for him to be out on his own. I would be
very surprised if his actual IQ was above 70. If he actually cut and pasted
this, I feel sorry for the original author too. Of course it reeks of Kent
Hovind. I actually find this quite funny. The irony of these groups
targeting the mentally deficient. And they wonder why no one takes them
seriously.
.
User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu"

Title: Re: Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? 23 Nov 2005 02:35:13 PM
"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> suddenly spluttered:

"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in message
news:LLSgf.27$LR4.4172@news.uswest.net...

By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? A scientific


<snipped ludicrous prattle>

I must say, I thought at first that Richard was actually an atheist out for
laughs. Now, I am positive he is not an atheist. I am 100% sure that he has
an incredibly low IQ. I know a couple of high functioning mentally retarded
individuals so I know it's possible for him to be out on his own. I would be
very surprised if his actual IQ was above 70. If he actually cut and pasted
this, I feel sorry for the original author too. Of course it reeks of Kent
Hovind. I actually find this quite funny. The irony of these groups
targeting the mentally deficient. And they wonder why no one takes them
seriously.

He probably wrote this:
http://www.creationevidence.org/fun_for_kids/kp011/kp011.html
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
User: "Troy"

Title: Re: Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? 23 Nov 2005 02:57:17 PM
"<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu" <yournamehere@martyrdom.org> wrote in
message news:9gv8o1hvsaqg90lhl0mr2092movnni3nh9@4ax.com...

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> suddenly spluttered:

"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in message
news:LLSgf.27$LR4.4172@news.uswest.net...

By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? A scientific


<snipped ludicrous prattle>

I must say, I thought at first that Richard was actually an atheist out

for

laughs. Now, I am positive he is not an atheist. I am 100% sure that he

has

an incredibly low IQ. I know a couple of high functioning mentally

retarded

individuals so I know it's possible for him to be out on his own. I would

be

very surprised if his actual IQ was above 70. If he actually cut and

pasted

this, I feel sorry for the original author too. Of course it reeks of

Kent

Hovind. I actually find this quite funny. The irony of these groups
targeting the mentally deficient. And they wonder why no one takes them
seriously.

He probably wrote this:

http://www.creationevidence.org/fun_for_kids/kp011/kp011.html

I am against big govt interfereing in the lives of it's citizens, but that
should be illegal. It's beyond being funny. It's actually scary that anyone
would want to show that to there kids. I suspect their target audience is
mentally challenged adults.
The pilgrims came to this country from England because the Church of England
wasn't religious enough for them. I really wish these people would do they
same. I'm sure they could get a good deal on some land in Guyana.

------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.

D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN

AA #2208

.


User: "AZ Nomad"

Title: Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? 23 Nov 2005 02:51:53 PM
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:11:57 -0600, Troy <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote:

"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in message
news:LLSgf.27$LR4.4172@news.uswest.net...

By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? A scientific

<snipped ludicrous prattle>
I must say, I thought at first that Richard was actually an atheist out for
laughs. Now, I am positive he is not an atheist. I am 100% sure that he has
an incredibly low IQ. I know a couple of high functioning mentally retarded
individuals so I know it's possible for him to be out on his own. I would be
very surprised if his actual IQ was above 70. If he actually cut and pasted
this, I feel sorry for the original author too. Of course it reeks of Kent
Hovind. I actually find this quite funny. The irony of these groups
targeting the mentally deficient. And they wonder why no one takes them
seriously.

What is really sad is that he is yet another christian poster-child. He
probably had a working brain originally, but years of neglect and outright
abuse have turned his mind into tapioca. Like a calf kept
in a box its entire life won't be able to walk, a child kept in the
mental shackles of christianity will never learn to think and it's brain will
atrophe.
.


User: "Tervicz"

Title: Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? 24 Nov 2005 05:11:29 PM
Actually evolution is and has been observed and is on the record.
Species of beatles, butterflies and even fish have evolved into
existence over a period of twenty, thirty, fourthy years. It has even
been observed that two different species merged into one.
.

User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian"

Title: And the real question is: 23 Nov 2005 05:52:49 AM
Dorky babbled:

By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory?

By everyone's standards, does dorky the coward have a working brain with at
least a double-digit IQ?
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
.

User: "raven1"

Title: Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? 23 Nov 2005 04:32:06 PM
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:05:00 -0700, "Richard Dawkins"
<Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:

Past events are not
testable

Do you consider the entire field of forensics to be unscientific as
well?
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.

User: "satyr"

Title: Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? 24 Nov 2005 06:45:03 AM
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:05:00 -0700, "Richard Dawkins"
<Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:

Past events are not
testable and, therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable.

Ever watch CSI?
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? 24 Nov 2005 05:05:47 PM
In <2boao1t2fj4cpfgigqe5fgmkutpnnif5gd@4ax.com>, satyr
<RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:05:00 -0700, "Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com>
wrote:

Past events are not
testable and, therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable.


Ever watch CSI?

Yeah, Raytard has just destroyed the entire criminal justice system...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Forgotten Already
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H1233272C
Feds are treating Louisiana like enemy
"...it may be that they may have written us off."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21E51C1C
http://www.nola.com
.

User: "Ben Kaufman"

Title: Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? 25 Nov 2005 01:44:16 PM
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:45:03 GMT, satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:05:00 -0700, "Richard Dawkins"
<Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:

Past events are not
testable and, therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable.


Ever watch CSI?

I don't think the folks who challenge evolution accept television either.
Ben
.
User: "David Jensen"

Title: Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? 25 Nov 2005 04:02:20 PM
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:44:16 -0500, in alt.atheism
Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote in
<o65eo1hbq2bfq140kae30agjpv8fg8qk8q@4ax.com>:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:45:03 GMT, satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:05:00 -0700, "Richard Dawkins"
<Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:

Past events are not
testable and, therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable.


Ever watch CSI?


I don't think the folks who challenge evolution accept television either.

Of course CSI: is idealized, to say the least. I'm particularly
impressed with the ability to find details in digital photographs, just
by zooming in endlessly.
.
User: "satyr"

Title: Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? 26 Nov 2005 06:20:50 AM
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:02:20 -0600, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:44:16 -0500, in alt.atheism
Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote in
<o65eo1hbq2bfq140kae30agjpv8fg8qk8q@4ax.com>:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:45:03 GMT, satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:05:00 -0700, "Richard Dawkins"
<Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:

Past events are not
testable and, therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable.


Ever watch CSI?


I don't think the folks who challenge evolution accept television either.


Of course CSI: is idealized, to say the least. I'm particularly
impressed with the ability to find details in digital photographs, just
by zooming in endlessly.

Not to mention the ready availability of software which seems purpose
built to solve this week's particular crime.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.




User: "David Jensen"

Title: Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? 23 Nov 2005 02:46:49 PM
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:05:00 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote in
<LLSgf.27$LR4.4172@news.uswest.net>:

By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory?

Absolutely.

A scientific
theory is defined as a "theory that explains scientific observations;
scientific theories must be falsifiable." What this means is that in order
for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist a test that can prove
it either right or wrong. Without putting the theory to a test, one can
never prove it-either true or false!

Seems like a reasonable explanation of part of what science does.

For example, one could observe an
orange sunset, and then theorize that the sun is always orange. There exists
a means to either prove or disprove this theory, therefore making it a valid
theory. Of course, if a theory is proven wrong, it should no longer be
considered a valid theory. In this case, if one continues to watch the sky,
they will see changes in its color.

Not bad.

If the same standards are applied to the
theory of evolution, we must fulfill these two conditions. Evolution must be
able to be observed and also be able to be put to the test.

It has, on both counts.

Because there
have not been any observed examples of macro-evolution on record, the first
condition is not met.

Your ignorance could be charming, but it makes no sense to use your
personal ignorance as an argument against reality.

Those who support this theory state that most major
evolutionary changes happened millions of years ago. Past events are not
testable and, therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable.

I just can't wait until you start applying your misunderstanding of
science to geology. Of course we can test to see if the theory is
congruent to evidence from the past.

Recall the
logical fallacies discussed at many philosophic websites. When something is
dated very old to prove a point, we are dealing with what is called
chronological snobbery.

No, sometimes reality just tells us that things happened a long time
ago.

Make no mistake, evolutionists know that they are
not dealing with either a scientific fact or theory, and must resort to
logical fallacies to validate their claims.

Ah, since all else fails, resort to libel. Very good.

This is best described by Dr.
Michael Denton, a proclaimed evolutionist: "His [Darwin's] general theory
that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive
accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time,
a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct FACTUAL support and
very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates
would have us believe."

And then, once you have libelled scientists, quote them out of context,
if your quote is valid at all, you failed to provide the source for us.

As we have seen, evolution is definitely not a fact.

There are many facts of evolution. That is why there is a theory of
evolution.

It is not even a scientific theory.

You are wrong.

As Dr. Denton has stated, it is nothing
more than a "highly speculative hypothesis." Can you imagine something so
contested, even by those who profess to believe it, taught in schools as
fact?

If you didn't just repeat the lies of others, you might learn that what
you said was wrong, that the evidence is compelling and that the theory
is consistent with the evidence. It would be irresponsible not to teach
it.

It leaves one to wonder, if it is not a fact or a theory, how exactly
is it scientific?

It is a theory based on the facts, that is why it is scientific.
It's pathetic watching the false witness of those whose religious belief
is so pitifully weak that they think that they have to lie about science
to keep their god from disappearing.
Have you read _Small Gods_ by Terry Pratchett? You really should.
.

User: ""

Title: Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? 23 Nov 2005 09:40:39 PM
Richard Dawkins wrote:

By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory?

For those who need to be told: this is the latest in a series of ripoff
texts. This time it's been lifted from "The Restored Church of God"
PDF pamphlet shelf at http://www.thercg.org/books.html , "Evolution -
Facts, Fallacies and Implications" and is Copyright =A9 2004 The
Restored Church of God. They might get mad. But your correspondent is
doctrinally eclectic. And, lest anyone remain in doubt, it isn't the
real Richard Dawkins.
.

User: "Dickhard Wankins"

Title: Re: By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? 23 Nov 2005 10:45:02 AM
Richard Dawkins wrote:
Usual unattributed cut'n'paste *****
Ambrosini, you will not treated as kindly in here as you are in
talk.origins.
OH WAIT,,there is ALOT MORE!

Ray has had at least 8 different addresses in the last 10 years. One
of them being a trailer park in Illinois. So all of that BS Ray about
your having no respect for "Trailer Trash" is PRETTY FUNNY, since you
sold your trailer in Illinois before coming to Arizona. Heah Ray,,did
that $18K that you got for the rats nest fund your trip to Phoenix?
OH WAIT,,,there is ALOT MORE!
Ray has posted financial information about a few others in the BF
arena,,and in particular someone's supposed personal bankrupcy. Ray
has posted this supposed person's bankrupcy at least a dozen times on
this board, his HIGH DESERT BOARD,,AND Erik Beckjord's board. NOW
folks,,this is going to rupture your GONADS!!!!!
Mr. Raymond Michael Ambrosini and his wife Concetta (She goes by
Connie) filed for CHAPTER 7 bankrupcy in ARIZONA on January 27/2000.
Heah Ray, was that CASE# 0000841PHX, filed in Phoenix and discharged
on 5/31/2000.
OH WAIT,,,there is ALOT MORE!
What is this thing about you and "Connie" having MULTIPLE name
spellings along with those MULTIPLE addresses over the past 10 years.
Can you not spell your name correctly? Is it Ambrosin, Ambrosini, ad
infinitum? AND, why does "CONCETTA" use the surname "GRIECO" when she
is married to you? Is it Connie Ambrosin, Concetta Ambrosini, Connie
Grieco, Concetta Grieco or something else?
OH WAIT,,,it gets better,,AND we are leaving all the rest of it for
another time.
Heah folks,,here is a guy that states that he is a pilot and is RICH
and slams that into people's faces,,and yet he cannot afford to pay
for the tabs on his car. You see,,,Mr. Raymond Michael Ambrosini has
NO REGISTRATION on his car and was pulled over in 2000 for being a bad
boy. Seems like a PILOT could at least pay the $500 bucks for
registration like the rest of us.
KEEP TUNED,,,cause we have so much more. Heah Ray,,next chapter coming
up for all to see what a liar and phoney you are. The really juicy
stuff is coming for all to see what a liar and coward you are Ray.
Maybe we will send you some nice flowers on September 16th to
celebrate your birthday. Many thanks to one of your butt buddies for
all of the help! Geez Ray, you sure don't know your friends from your
enemies anymore huh!!!

MORE RAYMOND MICHAEL AND CONCETTA AMBROSINI's SAD HOAXED
LIFE- AKA
RT, John Steele, Raymond Jerrold and others.
Bankruptcies
Court Location: ARIZONA - PHOENIX
Case Number: 0000841
Date Filed: 01/27/2000
Discharge Date: 05/31/2000
Debtor Name: AMBROSINI RAYMOND MICHAEL
Address: 11022 N INDIGO DR APT 118, FOUNTAIN HLS, AZ
85268-5449
Address: 11022 N INDIGO DR APT 118, FOUNTAIN HLS, AZ
85268-5449
OH WAIT-THERE IS MORE: Seems like "Concetta/Connie
Ambrosini" has had
a whole bunch of addresses in the past 10 years-and all over
the
country-and at the same time.
AMBROSINI CONCETTA J - 7612 159TH PL, TINLEY PARK, IL 60477

From 6/1992 to 6/2001

AMBROSINI CONCETTA J - 16715 E EL LAGO BLVD UNIT 201,
FOUNTAIN HILLS,
AZ 85268

From 12/1997 to 4/1999

AMBROSINI CONCETTA - PO BOX 479, CINCINNATI, OH 45263

From 3/1999 to 3/1999

AMBROSINI CONCETTA J - 7612 E EL LAGO # 159, FOUNTAIN HILLS,
AZ 85268

From 3/1999 to 3/1999

AMBROSINI CONCETTA - 201 SUITE, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ 85268

From 12/1997 to 1/1999

AMBROSINI CONNIE - 7156 W 127TH ST APT 125, PALOS HEIGHTS,
IL 60463

From 2/1998 to 1/1999

AMBROSINI CONCETTA - PO BOX 18110, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ 85269

From 7/1997 to 7/1997

AMBROSINI CONCETTA - 7612 159TH PL TINLEY PR W, COUNTRY CLUB
HILLS, IL
60478

From 6/1997 to 6/1997

AMBROSINI CONCETTA - PO BOX 1811, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ 85268

From 6/1997 to 6/1997

AMBROSINI CONNIE - 17612 W 159TH PL, TINLEY PARK, IL 60477

From 2/1992 to 1/1996

GRIECO CONCETTA - 102 FLAMINGO DR, BEECHER, IL 60401

From 2/1989 to 1/1995

AMBROSINI CONCETTA - GENERAL DELIVERY, TINLEY PARK, IL
60477

From 3/1992 to 3/1992

OH WAIT-THERE IS A LOT MORE Coming-The most juiciest will
suck all of
the fun out of Raytard's little puppet circus.
.


  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
Santorum Op-Ed: Present the full range of scientific views on evolution theory
Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Scientific method
Re: Why People Accept Evolution --> Because it fits the scientific observations!
Evolution named 2005's top scientific breakthrough
Re: ToBs:The Origin Of Dogs Biogenetic engineering Or evolution?-Scientific method
The Scientific Case Against Evolution
The Scientific Case Against Evolution
Religious conservatives tout "intelligent design" as a "secular," "scientific" alternative to evolution
Pope says there is substantial scientific proof for evolution.
Re: Is Evolution science?-scientific method double edge sword.
Evolution Education Is A 'Must' Says Coalition Of Scientific And Teaching Organizations
how divided is the scientific community?
Scientific research put under spotlight
OT: New Scientist Competition: invent a new scientific term.
A Scientific Fact
 

NEWER

pg.3585     pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER