"Intelligent Design" fails in some areas of the US

[Craven_Image]

 

Your explanation sounded like the species adapted to its surroundings by doing something throughout its life to bring about the change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also you should note that Natural Selection does not involve Speciation; the separation of sub-species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An example of evolution is the early dolphin when it developed it's fins because a mutation caused one dolphin to have a deformity - a primitive fin. This 'deformity' allowed it to swim better and catch more fish for it's offspring and ensured it's success. This mutant could create much more offspring then the others and it's 'deformity' was passed on to it's siblings. This occured much much more over the millions of years and created what is now known as a dolphin. This happened all over the planet with all species and that is what evolution is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right, and in any case, just this theory doesn't provide any way to predict which features will dominate, simply because the environment and the species are too complex to make any logical conclusion out. So my original point remains - the theory of evolution doesn't predict anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep the main reason it's unpredictable is because it's totally random; meiosis and mutations occuring within genes are entirely random. There are many ways of becoming a different species for all we know dolphins could of evolved a biological outboard motor. We can't predict such things because they are entirely random.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However although you cannot describe what a future species may look like and what features they will have you can assume where and how a species could develop. My personal assumption is that there would be a new species developing from humans on different planets such as Mars if and when we colonize it I mentioned this in another post but because of isolation from Earth and Mars the two groups of humans don't interbreed and due to different factors on Mars natural selection occurs after millions of years on mars and causes a new species of human to evolve. It's also possible that technology will stop this from happening though.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

Doesn't the theory of Evolution simply predict that genetic traits are passed on or die out depending on changing enviromental conditions? For example, if you have an isolated island with two different flowers and a species of bird where each individual bird can only extract food from either type of flower. Wouldn't the theory of evolution dictate that if the population of one of the flower types grows, the amount of individual birds within the species with the genetic trait that allows them to feed on that type of flower will also grow?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, that is something more to do with supply and demand. I think. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural Selection is when something like a bird, adapts itself to a changing enviroment. For instance, if a type of bird kept getting eaten while it was sleeping at night - that species might adapt themselves to become nocturnal. Evolution would happen when a species has to adapt so much...they evolve into a different species of animal. Theoretically its how humans came to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, adaptation isn't entirely the right word for the process. The genes of a species as a whole don't change, it's mutation in the individual genomes that cause evolution. The most adapted genes will be passed on and become dominant, the least adapted genes will die out. The species as a whole doesn't evolve, it's the mutation of the individual genome that makes the difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right, and eventually the whole species changes. And eventually, the species changes into another species. I don't understand how what you said is any different than what I did. You just used bigger words to say exactly what I did. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your explanation sounded like the species adapted to its surroundings by doing something throughout its life to bring about the change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also you should note that Natural Selection does not involve Speciation; the separation of sub-species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An example of evolution is the early dolphin when it developed it's fins because a mutation caused one dolphin to have a deformity - a primitive fin. This 'deformity' allowed it to swim better and catch more fish for it's offspring and ensured it's success. This mutant could create much more offspring then the others and it's 'deformity' was passed on to it's siblings. This occured much much more over the millions of years and created what is now known as a dolphin. This happened all over the planet with all species and that is what evolution is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I get what you are saying - and I did make it sound like that even though its not what I meant. I was thinking right along with you about how a mutation turns into an adaption - it helps the animal survive better. I think I did a bad job at saying what I meant to. :oops:

[Scruffy5389]

 

Your explanation sounded like the species adapted to its surroundings by doing something throughout its life to bring about the change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also you should note that Natural Selection does not involve Speciation; the separation of sub-species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An example of evolution is the early dolphin when it developed it's fins because a mutation caused one dolphin to have a deformity - a primitive fin. This 'deformity' allowed it to swim better and catch more fish for it's offspring and ensured it's success. This mutant could create much more offspring then the others and it's 'deformity' was passed on to it's siblings. This occured much much more over the millions of years and created what is now known as a dolphin. This happened all over the planet with all species and that is what evolution is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right, and in any case, just this theory doesn't provide any way to predict which features will dominate, simply because the environment and the species are too complex to make any logical conclusion out. So my original point remains - the theory of evolution doesn't predict anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Skunk Cabbage. That's like saying we can't predict the weather. Obviously, meteorology is way to complicated to predict what the weather will be like a year from now. But we can make limited predictions about the next few days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution is even more complicated, but we can likewise make predictions. Example: A doctor makes an anti-bacterial drug. Theory of evolution predicts that within five years a new type of bacteria will have evolved that is immune to the drug. The prediction is then proven correct when, a year later, there are resistant strains of bacteria. This actually happens, resistant bacteria have developed in Africa before their respective drugs have even become legal in America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saying "the theory of evolution doesn't predict anything" is incorrect. Just because we are not smart enough to understand it fully does not mean it can't predict things.

[Hannibal]

 

 

Your explanation sounded like the species adapted to its surroundings by doing something throughout its life to bring about the change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also you should note that Natural Selection does not involve Speciation; the separation of sub-species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An example of evolution is the early dolphin when it developed it's fins because a mutation caused one dolphin to have a deformity - a primitive fin. This 'deformity' allowed it to swim better and catch more fish for it's offspring and ensured it's success. This mutant could create much more offspring then the others and it's 'deformity' was passed on to it's siblings. This occured much much more over the millions of years and created what is now known as a dolphin. This happened all over the planet with all species and that is what evolution is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right, and in any case, just this theory doesn't provide any way to predict which features will dominate, simply because the environment and the species are too complex to make any logical conclusion out. So my original point remains - the theory of evolution doesn't predict anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Skunk Cabbage. That's like saying we can't predict the weather. Obviously, meteorology is way to complicated to predict what the weather will be like a year from now. But we can make limited predictions about the next few days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution is even more complicated, but we can likewise make predictions. Example: A doctor makes an anti-bacterial drug. Theory of evolution predicts that within five years a new type of bacteria will have evolved that is immune to the drug. The prediction is then proven correct when, a year later, there are resistant strains of bacteria. This actually happens, resistant bacteria have developed in Africa before their respective drugs have even become legal in America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saying "the theory of evolution doesn't predict anything" is incorrect. Just because we are not smart enough to understand it fully does not mean it can't predict things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I predict that within 5000 years, humans will have found a solution for the smog problem. The basis of this is human ingenuity. Does that make human ingenuity a scientific theory? Your 'prediction' is not derived off the exact theory, and still random guesswork. In fact, it may take 10 years if, apart from the lab-tested ones, no bacteria of that sort are exposed to the drug, or if this bacteria replicates their genes not as fast, or if the drug stops this replication process, or or or or... Evolution (should it exist) is far too complicated (according to that theory) to be used for accurate and useful predictions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incidentally, is it really that hard to reply to my post without insulting me or mindlessly trash-talking about what I wrote?

[bjbj1991]

Evolution may not be fully predictible however DNA changes constantly. Every now and then the DNA mutates calsing canncer i think that viruses inplant their own DNA into a cell maby even changing it. sexual reproduction allows dna to change with every generation. these changes are random some trates are stronger than others but it is still is unpredictible. we dont even know what 90% of are DNA controles. Other factors also affect lifes evolution.

the permian mass extinction released toxins into the air killing off most species oxygen lvls were only 10%



reptiles have a more advanced lung system than mamles so they were better adapted to live. but eggs are not an safe method of childbirth, so mamles developed a plecenta to bear live young.



mamles remained small during the Mesozoic era but reptiles were allowed to grow large. the Cretaceous mass extinction killed of massive amounts of vegitation and lowerd the surface tempature. the large reptiles could not eat and were freasing because they couldnt maintain their body tempeture so they died.

these are the events that lead to mamles becoming the domminent form of life. the first extinction was a massive vocanic event and the second was a rock from space. a biological theory can not predict ethor one of those events but it was able to explane the outcome of those.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Evolution may not be fully predictible however DNA changes constantly. Every now and then the DNA mutates calsing canncer i think that viruses inplant their own DNA into a cell maby even changing it. sexual reproduction allows dna to change with every generation. these changes are random some trates are stronger than others but it is still is unpredictible. we dont even know what 90% of are DNA controles. Other factors also affect lifes evolution.

the permian mass extinction released toxins into the air killing off most species oxygen lvls were only 10%



reptiles have a more advanced lung system than mamles so they were better adapted to live. but eggs are not an safe method of childbirth, so mamles developed a plecenta to bear live young.



mamles remained small during the Mesozoic era but reptiles were allowed to grow large. the Cretaceous mass extinction killed of massive amounts of vegitation and lowerd the surface tempature. the large reptiles could not eat and were freasing because they couldnt maintain their body tempeture so they died.

these are the events that lead to mamles becoming the domminent form of life. the first extinction was a massive vocanic event and the second was a rock from space. a biological theory can not predict ethor one of those events but it was able to explane the outcome of those.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You weren't there - no one else was there to write it down...you can't prove it.

[bjbj1991]

 

Evolution may not be fully predictible however DNA changes constantly. Every now and then the DNA mutates calsing canncer i think that viruses inplant their own DNA into a cell maby even changing it. sexual reproduction allows dna to change with every generation. these changes are random some trates are stronger than others but it is still is unpredictible. we dont even know what 90% of are DNA controles. Other factors also affect lifes evolution.

the permian mass extinction released toxins into the air killing off most species oxygen lvls were only 10%



reptiles have a more advanced lung system than mamles so they were better adapted to live. but eggs are not an safe method of childbirth, so mamles developed a plecenta to bear live young.



mamles remained small during the Mesozoic era but reptiles were allowed to grow large. the Cretaceous mass extinction killed of massive amounts of vegitation and lowerd the surface tempature. the large reptiles could not eat and were freasing because they couldnt maintain their body tempeture so they died.

these are the events that lead to mamles becoming the domminent form of life. the first extinction was a massive vocanic event and the second was a rock from space. a biological theory can not predict ethor one of those events but it was able to explane the outcome of those.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You weren't there - no one else was there to write it down...you can't prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mother Nature was there and she did write it down

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

Evolution may not be fully predictible however DNA changes constantly. Every now and then the DNA mutates calsing canncer i think that viruses inplant their own DNA into a cell maby even changing it. sexual reproduction allows dna to change with every generation. these changes are random some trates are stronger than others but it is still is unpredictible. we dont even know what 90% of are DNA controles. Other factors also affect lifes evolution.

the permian mass extinction released toxins into the air killing off most species oxygen lvls were only 10%



reptiles have a more advanced lung system than mamles so they were better adapted to live. but eggs are not an safe method of childbirth, so mamles developed a plecenta to bear live young.



mamles remained small during the Mesozoic era but reptiles were allowed to grow large. the Cretaceous mass extinction killed of massive amounts of vegitation and lowerd the surface tempature. the large reptiles could not eat and were freasing because they couldnt maintain their body tempeture so they died.

these are the events that lead to mamles becoming the domminent form of life. the first extinction was a massive vocanic event and the second was a rock from space. a biological theory can not predict ethor one of those events but it was able to explane the outcome of those.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You weren't there - no one else was there to write it down...you can't prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mother Nature was there and she did write it down

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We could be interpreting it wrong and you can't prove it either way. Face it - it is nothing but speculation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Granted...I think evolution should be taught in schools. But as speculation because that is all it is.

[bjbj1991]

Siberia is covered by massive lava flows indicating a period of massive volcanic activity about 250million years ago. approximately 90% of life at the time died at that time. carbon dating is based by the decay rate of carbon14 within living organism. an organism will stop consuming carbon 14 when it dies. also a rare mineral that can not form in a high oxygen environment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oil drillers discovered a crater like shape in the geology underwater. a layer of rare ore that is common in asteroids but not earth is 65million years old and no dinos are on top of it. along with the dinos about 50% of the species living at the time also died.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

would you like me to tell you why the earth can not be coverd by water?

[Guest GhostRanger]

Siberia is coverd by massive lava flows indicating a period of massive vocanic activity about 250million years ago. aproximantly 90% of life at the time died at that time. carbon dating is based by the decay rate of carbon14 within living organism. an organism will stop consumming carbon 14 when it dies. also a rare mineral that can not form in a high oxygen engirment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oil drillers discoverd a crater like shape in the geology underwater. a layer of rare ore that is common in astorids but not earth is 65million years old and no dinos are on top of it. along with the dinos abot 50% of the species living at the time also died.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again its speculation. I notced you using the words "about" and "approximately" meaning nothing you know is for sure. And although it is widely accepted as a good basis for time estimation, in the scientific field it is also noted that Carbon 14 has shown inaccuracies and could be completely inaccurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything you just said is still nothing but speculation as no one was there to watch it happen.

[bjbj1991]

 

Siberia is coverd by massive lava flows indicating a period of massive vocanic activity about 250million years ago. aproximantly 90% of life at the time died at that time. carbon dating is based by the decay rate of carbon14 within living organism. an organism will stop consumming carbon 14 when it dies. also a rare mineral that can not form in a high oxygen engirment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oil drillers discoverd a crater like shape in the geology underwater. a layer of rare ore that is common in astorids but not earth is 65million years old and no dinos are on top of it. along with the dinos abot 50% of the species living at the time also died.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again its speculation. I notced you using the words "about" and "approximately" meaning nothing you know is for sure. And although it is widely accepted as a good basis for time estimation, in the scientific field it is also noted that Carbon 14 has shown inaccuracies and could be completely inaccurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything you just said is still nothing but speculation as no one was there to watch it happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carbon14's decay rate is 5730 years. when you talk about time spans of hundreds of millions of years a 300,000year err is exceptible to most people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is nothing i can say that will prove to you that this happend but some people can not be convinced.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

Siberia is coverd by massive lava flows indicating a period of massive vocanic activity about 250million years ago. aproximantly 90% of life at the time died at that time. carbon dating is based by the decay rate of carbon14 within living organism. an organism will stop consumming carbon 14 when it dies. also a rare mineral that can not form in a high oxygen engirment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oil drillers discoverd a crater like shape in the geology underwater. a layer of rare ore that is common in astorids but not earth is 65million years old and no dinos are on top of it. along with the dinos abot 50% of the species living at the time also died.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again its speculation. I notced you using the words "about" and "approximately" meaning nothing you know is for sure. And although it is widely accepted as a good basis for time estimation, in the scientific field it is also noted that Carbon 14 has shown inaccuracies and could be completely inaccurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything you just said is still nothing but speculation as no one was there to watch it happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carbon14's decay rate is 5730 years. when you talk about time spans of hundreds of millions of years a 300,000year err is exceptible to most people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is nothing i can say that will prove to you that this happend but some people can not be convinced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said I don't believe. Look in my posts and find when I said that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All I said is that it is speculation and you would do well to accept that. The scientific community as a whole accepts that it is all speculation and we cannot PROVE WITHOUT DOUBT any of it. You are just kidding yourself if you accept it as 100% truth.

[bjbj1991]

GhostRanger how are you even 100% sure that i exist? What about anyone else? the world? the universe? yourself? the Answer is that your not. there is no way to prove anything 100%.

[Guest GhostRanger]

GhostRanger how are you even 100% sure that i exist? What about anyone else? the world? the universe? yourself? the Answer is that your not. there is no way to prove anything 100%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't act like Descartes - I know more about him than you do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can see it...I can watch it happen...or I can trust that scientists have seen it happen. But if we are talking about things that are only SPECULATION because no one was there...then I accept it as speculation that could one day be proven. That is how scientists think of it so I wonder why you are defending an idea that even the people who study evolution don't defend? Its scientific theory which means that it is NOT proven to be 100% true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And seriously - if you want to be sure that you exist, study Descartes. He was an absolutely fascinating man.

[Xenicus]

I studied Descartes , Socrates, Aristotle, Plato ect. in english class reading a book on philosophy and its history...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People these days are trying to fuse religion and philisophical teachings into scientific education. Thoughts and facts come from different things. Facts come from real data and thoughts come from a persons perception of thier surroundings. Religion comes from a persons thought and ideas and perceptions as well as most philosophy. Philosophy is closer to science than religion because it inspires discovery and constantly asks

 

 

 

"why"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion is something usually where someone makes something up which net-explains the universe and it's functions. The Greek's believed that the "gods" would see how the earth ran. Zeus was the god that threw down bolts of lightning , that explained lightning- this goes so on. This is with most religions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In science, tools are used to discover new things. So a tool was used to identify ancient DNA and another tools was used to uncover a million year old fossil and see that there was a lizard-fish creature. Also a tool for identifying DNA was used to find that there was only a 2% difference in the DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Scientists all over the world kept researching and came up with a theory of evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What contains more brain power, the guy who wrote the bible or thousands of scientists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion isn't science, if you don't want your kid to know certain facts then give the teacher an excuse slip to excuse your kid from that section of learning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This modern world is of facts, religion used to keep us all ordely but society has evolved and religion causes more problems than solutions. It gets in the way of knowledge and we need knowledge to advance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe people should know that it was the church who kept Europe in the dark ages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying relgion is bad or anything but I think people should keep religion to themselves.

[Pur304]

Just a quick point, you mentioned the church in medieval times. I assume you mean the Roman Catholic chruch. I'm aware they tried to destroy some scientific discoveries that would contradict THEIR teachings, but not all of the Roman Catholics teaching are in accordance with the Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be careful not to look at one branch of Christianity as everyones point of view.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science is about physicalities, but faith is about life itself. Humanity can't go on through science only, because science doesnt answer the way we should live.

[Hannibal]

What contains more brain power, the guy who wrote the bible or thousands of scientists.

 

 

 

That's just a stupid way of nihilating the debate we're having here. There wasn't 'one guy' who wrote the bible, and arguably, Darwin just about on his own set the foundations for a theory of evolution. And even so, insinuating that whatever took more brain power must be better is silly. To take an example you yourself used a bit down: what contains more brain power, a congregate of cardinals and bishops or galileo galilei on his own?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion isn't science, if you don't want your kid to know certain facts then give the teacher an excuse slip to excuse your kid from that section of learning.

 

 

 

It's not fact, it's a theory about things we call 'facts' (whether that means they're 100% true depends on your definition of 100% true). And I'm not arguing it shouldn't be tought, I'm arguing we should also teach students the relativity of the whole issue - it's just a theory, and there are many critics of it. In a social science / history of science class, that's an important thing to learn, otherwise your kids grow up as narrow-minded idiots who won't believe anything that's not in their biology textbook.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This modern world is of facts, religion used to keep us all ordely but society has evolved and religion causes more problems than solutions. It gets in the way of knowledge and we need knowledge to advance.

 

 

 

Yeah, I can see that being true. Knowledge gave us the A-Bomb, H-Bomb, neural gas (hope that's the right English word), and who knows what other terrible things. Meanwhile, just about every religion on the planet was preaching peace. Writing religion off because you don't like some of its practitioners is not very logical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe people should know that it was the church who kept Europe in the dark ages.

 

 

 

I'd say that's a strong way to put it, for one. For another, maybe people should know that the Spanish conquered large parts of Europe back then - let's still hate them for what they did back then, because that makes perfect sense! *resists urge to put a roll-eye smilie here*

 

 

 

Condemning an organization, or a country, for things that happened more than 500 years ago (roughly) is not going to get us anywhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying relgion is bad or anything but I think people should keep religion to themselves.

 

 

 

I'm not saying science is bad, but I think people should be taught objectively about religion. If you don't do that, they can't understand why others are religious, and that leads to spite and conflict. Understanding is the first step to coexisting. Sure, nobody needs to be 'converted', but having a general understanding of what people do and don't believe is good. Check out the topic about islam, lots of people commented that muslims were all fanatics and whatnot - can you see how their ignorance of what islam really is made them think like that? Having classes on what religions believe, in an objective manner, is not a bad thing at all, in my opinion.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I studied Descartes , Socrates, Aristotle, Plato ect. in english class reading a book on philosophy and its history...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haha...wow. My Descartes reference was purely comical...bjbj asked how I could be sure I existed so I referenced Descartes...that is of course what he spent his life wondering. I was making no connection to religion or anything else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But since you brought it up...and I happen to know a little bit about Philosophy (hey, its my major), I would like to point out a few things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People these days are trying to fuse religion and philisophical teachings into scientific education. Thoughts and facts come from different things. Facts come from real data and thoughts come from a persons perception of thier surroundings. Religion comes from a persons thought and ideas and perceptions as well as most philosophy. Philosophy is closer to science than religion because it inspires discovery and constantly asks

 

 

 

"why"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientific education has always been a type of philosophy. Its not that philosophy is closer to religion or science, there are types of philosophy that cover both. There is Philosophy of Religion, Law, Mathematics, Science, etc. - its a concept that is so broad that no one can agree on a definition of what philosophy is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would also like to point out that a lot of religions are based on fact. Since I know most about Christianity I will use it as an example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Its a fact that Jesus existed.

 

 

 

- According to the people that followed him, its a fact that Jesus performed miracles that no one else could.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its very logical to assume that if Jesus could do things that no other human could, that he was a being from somewhere else, and since he preached that he was the Son of God, its logical to believe that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now granted, I'm not trying to convert you and I know non-Christians don't believe he performed miracles. But there are people who supposedly saw him perform these miracles and so the religion is not just based on "made up ideas that explain how the earth came to be."

[HugATree]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion isn't science, if you don't want your kid to know certain facts then give the teacher an excuse slip to excuse your kid from that section of learning.

 

 

 

It's not fact, it's a theory about things we call 'facts' (whether that means they're 100% true depends on your definition of 100% true). And I'm not arguing it shouldn't be tought, I'm arguing we should also teach students the relativity of the whole issue - it's just a theory, and there are many critics of it.

 

 

 

No its not just a theory, how many times must that be explained?

 

 

 

There exists critics of the spherical earth, like these they can complain and put forth baseless claims right up to their death; its still baseless claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a social science / history of science class, that's an important thing to learn, otherwise your kids grow up as narrow-minded idiots who won't believe anything that's not in their biology textbook.

 

 

 

Reality is narrow.

[Hannibal]

No its not just a theory, how many times must that be explained?

 

 

 

There exists critics of the spherical earth, like these they can complain and put forth baseless claims right up to their death; its still baseless claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I wouldn't exactly have expected you to read the past few pages where we've already discussed this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=2481783#2481783

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try again.

[HugATree]

 

No its not just a theory, how many times must that be explained?

 

 

 

There exists critics of the spherical earth, like these they can complain and put forth baseless claims right up to their death; its still baseless claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I wouldn't exactly have expected you to read the past few pages where we've already discussed this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=2481783#2481783

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, I've read it. You even make the uneducated claim 'Its just a theory' in that too.

 

 

 

Interesting that thoses who don't understand scientific terms are the very same ones trying to re-define them.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

No its not just a theory, how many times must that be explained?

 

 

 

There exists critics of the spherical earth, like these they can complain and put forth baseless claims right up to their death; its still baseless claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I wouldn't exactly have expected you to read the past few pages where we've already discussed this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=2481783#2481783

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, I've read it. You even make the uneducated claim 'Its just a theory' in that too.

 

 

 

Interesting that thoses who don't understand scientific terms are the very same ones trying to re-define them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're the one trying to redefine scientific terms. If you had read this post I wouldn't have to repost this, but here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neither is a scientific theory a fact. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientific theories are not 100% solid fact.

[HugATree]

 

 

 

Neither is a scientific theory a fact. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientific theories are not 100% solid fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You realise nothing in science is 100% fact?

 

 

 

No one said they were.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

Neither is a scientific theory a fact. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientific theories are not 100% solid fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You realise nothing in science is 100% fact?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plenty of things are fact. Things we observe happen. For instance, decompisition is a fact. We can watch it happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why it might happen...that is of course theory. We could be completely wrong about why decompisition happens - but it still happens and that's a fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humans evolving from apes - it might be possible - but we didn't see it happen and therefore we can't say that its fact. If we assume that it did happen, its only a theory because we can't prove it.

[HugATree]

 

 

 

 

 

Neither is a scientific theory a fact. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scientific theories are not 100% solid fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You realise nothing in science is 100% fact?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plenty of things are fact. Things we observe happen. For instance, decompisition is a fact. We can watch it happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The explanations are not 100% fact, with enough evidence you can change any scientific theory or law. They are not 100% absolute and can be changed, if it wasn't the case new evidence would be ignored.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humans evolving from apes - it might be possible - but we didn't see it happen and therefore we can't say that its fact. If we assume that it did happen, its only a theory because we can't prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This isn't what defines it as a scientific theory. Scientific theories are explanations for observed phenomena.

 

 

 

Even if you watched apes evolve into humans, you'd still need an explanation therefore it would still be a scientific theory.