FreeflyChile 0 #101 August 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteOne is science and the other is Conscience. Is that a Freudian slip? Yes, one is science and the other is against science. So far, chuteless' argument is scoring a 0.000001 on the Marg scale of reasoning. Perhaps we can further this idea: how about a Marg = -Chuteless? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #102 August 5, 2008 Quote The bracket implies that I think the theory could become a fact given future discoveries, technology, etc.... The very fact (pun not intended) that you don't understand how theories can become facts means you do not understand what a fact or theory is. Awesome. Seriously, read up on what the scientific definitions of the words hypothesis, theory, law and fact are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #103 August 5, 2008 Oh dear. And you think that's anything at all to do with evolution being both fact and theory? No. Totally wrong, about both evolution and the relationship between fact and theory in general. Read the link.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #104 August 5, 2008 QuoteThe bracket implies that I think the theory could become a fact given future discoveries, technology, etc.... The very fact (pun not intended) that you don't understand how theories can become facts means you do not understand what a fact or theory is. Oh dear. Keep digging, Butters. Keep digging.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #105 August 5, 2008 QuoteAnother thought in this discussion is how long is a day to God? Time is not as constant as we believe, because as we get older, time goes by faster. When you are 5 years old, 1 month is 1/60th of forever as far as you are concerned because it is 1/60 of your existence. 1 month to me (33) is 1/396th of forever. My perception of 1 hour and the perception of a 5 year old who is told to wait one hour are completely different. Multiply this by infinity and you have God's perspective. Who is to say that 1 day to God was not several million years? Who's to say he didn't create animals at 5:00 am (his time, because he's an early riser) and got around to making man at around 8:00 pm (His time)? So how long was this in My time? Could be 100 Million years. Just another perspective on the discussion. Mark Klingelhoefer Doesn't really matter, to be honest. The point of the creation story in Genesis was to impress upon the hebrew people the awe-inspiring power of God. Not to explain science, or to try to be taken literally or interpreted through a scientific lens, etc It's only silly people like us who try to take it and make the bible into something it was never meant to be. It's not a science book. it's a faith book. If i want to read about the HOW of humanity, i read Darwin or Gould or somesuch. If i want to read about the WHY of humanity, i read the Bible. and THAT is the fundamental difference.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #106 August 5, 2008 QuoteMicro evolution occurs within a species. Macro evolution occurs when a species becomes a completely different species (that is incapable of interbreeding). Bleedin' heck. How many legless lizards do you know which still breed with their legged counterparts?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #107 August 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteMicro evolution occurs within a species. Macro evolution occurs when a species becomes a completely different species (that is incapable of interbreeding). Bleedin' heck. How many legless lizards do you know which still breed with their legged counterparts? The key word is incapable ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #108 August 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteMicro evolution occurs within a species. Macro evolution occurs when a species becomes a completely different species (that is incapable of interbreeding). Bleedin' heck. How many legless lizards do you know which still breed with their legged counterparts? The key word is incapable ... Bleedin' heck. How many legless lizards do you know which are capable of breeding with their legged counterparts?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #109 August 5, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Micro evolution occurs within a species. Macro evolution occurs when a species becomes a completely different species (that is incapable of interbreeding). Bleedin' heck. How many legless lizards do you know which still breed with their legged counterparts? The key word is incapable ... Bleedin' heck. How many legless lizards do you know which are capable of breeding with their legged counterparts? Either you don't understand what incapable of interbreeding means or you are trolling ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #110 August 5, 2008 Quote Quote The bracket implies that I think the theory could become a fact given future discoveries, technology, etc.... The very fact (pun not intended) that you don't understand how theories can become facts means you do not understand what a fact or theory is. Awesome. Seriously, read up on what the scientific definitions of the words hypothesis, theory, law and fact are. According to your own article: Quote In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." Quote Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Thus, a theory could become a fact when the ideas of the theory are confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. How is this incorrect?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #111 August 5, 2008 QuoteI did NOT say i believe that God didn't create evolution as well, as a means to His end. I never once said that the Genesis story isn't more than a metaphor given to a people over 5000 years ago to attempt to assuage their fears by trying to explain the unexplainable. If god had said "well, abraham, what really happened was this:" then launched into a lengthy discussion of evolutionary biology...really...do you think they would have "got it"? If this were the case, he/she/god should have been able to explain him/her/itself; he/she/god is supposed to be, at the end of the day, God isn’t he/she/it? Your beliefs are contradictory to the teachings of the church and the bible then are they not?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #112 August 5, 2008 Quote Quote Quote One is science and the other is Conscience. Is that a Freudian slip? Yes, one is science and the other is against science. So far, chuteless' argument is scoring a 0.000001 on the Marg scale of reasoning. Perhaps we can further this idea: how about a Marg = -Chuteless? My original proposal to the International System of Units for the "Marg" scale of reasoning was simply that zero would equal no reasoning whatsoever and literally having every atom in the universe being used as data to support your point would be a 10. If I understand you correctly, you'd like to expand this into numbers below zero and reclassify those numbers to reflect the absurdity of the argument in terms of "Chuteless". While I sort of agree with your basic premise, it does seem rather negative. Further, I'm not certain all units of measure need to contain negative numbers. For instance, a temperature below absolute zero or of a time -before- the Big Bang.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #113 August 5, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Micro evolution occurs within a species. Macro evolution occurs when a species becomes a completely different species (that is incapable of interbreeding). Bleedin' heck. How many legless lizards do you know which still breed with their legged counterparts? The key word is incapable ... Bleedin' heck. How many legless lizards do you know which are capable of breeding with their legged counterparts? Either you don't understand what incapable of interbreeding means or you are trolling ... According to you, micro evolution s both "a lizard losing its legs" and "occurs within a species." Also according to you only macro evolution leads to organisms incapable of interbreeding. So, again, how many legless lizards do you know which can breed with legged lizards? I only ask 'cos I've got loads of slow worms in my compost heap and I like to see what I can get if I breed them with a legged lizard.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #114 August 5, 2008 QuoteMy original proposal to the International System of Units for the "Marg" scale of reasoning was simply that zero would equal no reasoning whatsoever and literally having every atom in the universe being used as data to support your point would be a 10. And you gave Chuteless 0.000001? Generous. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #115 August 5, 2008 QuoteThus, a theory could become a fact when the ideas of the theory are confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. How is this incorrect? First, which article? I didn't post one. Second, a theory is a testable model that explains one or more facts. A fact is merely an observation of some aspect of nature. A law is a description (usually mathematical) of a scientific fact and seeks to provide no insight as to why that fact occurs it merely states that it does. Theories are there to provide the insight that both facts and laws do not and cannot provide. Facts (and laws) cannot be theories and theories can never become fact. Ever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #116 August 5, 2008 Well, he did have a source of his beliefs. I'm not saying it was a good source, but it was a source none the less. Oh, and did I mention it's a logarithmic scale?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #117 August 5, 2008 Quote Quote bleedin' heck. How many legless lizards do you know which are capable of breeding with their legged counterparts? Either you don't understand what incapable of interbreeding means or you are trolling ... I think the real issue is the poor legless female lizards, the really can't run away from the legged lizards at all. While the vice versa - the legged females can choose their mates based on whether the males can catch them. This is one reason the legless lizards tend to learn to swim fast. Bands of college aged drunken legged lizards think they are so cool, but really they are just a bit too forward. We should band together to protect the legless female lizards. And maybe pitch in for the legless males to get their profiles on match.com ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #118 August 5, 2008 Quote Well, he did have a source of his beliefs. I'm not saying it was a good source, but it was a source none the less. . . . I guess so . . . Quote Oh, and did I mention it's a logarithmic scale? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #119 August 5, 2008 QuoteThus, a theory could become a fact when the ideas of the theory are confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. How is this incorrect? Ooookaaay. Here's where you're stuck. "In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess." Here's where you need to get to. "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered." Evolution happens, it is a fact. Over many generations species change and diverge and develope and produce new types of creature and plant. This is a fact. Evolution is also what we call our explanation of how things evolve, and thus it is also a theory. This is what is meant when we say evolution is fact and theory. It is absolutely not true, and is a grave misunderstanding, to say something along the lines of "Well, we know that evolution can produce this much change, so that's a fact, but we're not sure if it can produce that much change, so that part remains a theory." It simply does not work like that.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #120 August 5, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote One is science and the other is Conscience. Is that a Freudian slip? Yes, one is science and the other is against science. So far, chuteless' argument is scoring a 0.000001 on the Marg scale of reasoning. Perhaps we can further this idea: how about a Marg = -Chuteless? My original proposal to the International System of Units for the "Marg" scale of reasoning was simply that zero would equal no reasoning whatsoever and literally having every atom in the universe being used as data to support your point would be a 10. If I understand you correctly, you'd like to expand this into numbers below zero and reclassify those numbers to reflect the absurdity of the argument in terms of "Chuteless". While I sort of agree with your basic premise, it does seem rather negative. Further, I'm not certain all units of measure need to contain negative numbers. For instance, a temperature below absolute zero or of a time -before- the Big Bang. This is true. The other way I was thinking of a "Marg" is not so much as a quantity, but as a measure within a scale (like pH measurements). So for example, a Marg of 0 would be perfectly objective. In terms of the debate, then, you can assign sides as necessary from -1 to 0 to 1 --- like totally off-the-rocker religious would be -1, 0 would be the reasoned argument taking into account what we know about science and respecting people's beliefs in religion, and 1 would be the ultra-scientific "people who believe in God are retards" extreme. In another embodiment, the -1 crowd would be the hardcore Clinton-got-a-BJ republicans, 0 would be the simple disclosure of facts on a topic and 1 would be the "Bush is satan" democrats. Though my system, after writing all of that, seems a bit too complicated. I like your system better. And though it's true that some measurements don't need negative units, given the drivel that sometimes gets spewed on the SC, having a scale for utter absurdity (the 'anti-Marg' or 'chuteless', if you will) is necessary to accurately measure arguments here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #121 August 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteI did NOT say i believe that God didn't create evolution as well, as a means to His end. I never once said that the Genesis story isn't more than a metaphor given to a people over 5000 years ago to attempt to assuage their fears by trying to explain the unexplainable. If god had said "well, abraham, what really happened was this:" then launched into a lengthy discussion of evolutionary biology...really...do you think they would have "got it"? If this were the case, he/she/god should have been able to explain him/her/itself; he/she/god is supposed to be, at the end of the day, God isn’t he/she/it? Your beliefs are contradictory to the teachings of the church and the bible then are they not? which church do you refer to? There are many Christians, particularly the scientists, who take a much more pragmatic, less literal, approach to faith. We don't bother to explain to lab rats the way of the world, do we? Why would a god be any different with us? -- For your earlier question - how to explain flightless birds in NZ? That's too easy - the literalists will say because God put them there. Those like BikerBabe will say because of evolution, evolved from the starting point that God gave us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #122 August 5, 2008 >Macro evolution occurs when a species becomes a completely >different species (that is incapable of interbreeding). In that case, we have seen the following cases of macroevolution occur right in front of our own eyes: Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis) Tragopogon Raphanobrassica Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit) Madia citrigracilis Brassica Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum) Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae) Stephanomeira malheurensis Maize (Zea mays) Drosophila paulistorum (a kind of fruit fly) So we have solid, observed scientific proof of both the things you call microevolution and macroevolution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martin-o 0 #123 August 5, 2008 Quote >We should not abandon a theory due to a lack of evidence. So you think the world might be flat? (After all, the lack of evidence is not evidence it's not flat!) http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #124 August 5, 2008 Yeah.. but all those are plant. We all know plants dont count. And for the purpose of this dicsussion, fuit flies are plants too.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iamsam 0 #125 August 5, 2008 Quote We decended from apes and monkeys... As well as an S, you forgot to add aliens but what do I know Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
