Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To be fair, theories regarding black holes, the higgs boson, etc, are simply placeholders to explain gaps in physical theories. Apart from the mathematics, its really no different.
To be fair, theories regarding black holes, the higgs boson, etc, are simply placeholders to explain gaps in physical theories. Apart from the mathematics, its really no different.
Not at all for black holes, they were a logical formulation of Einstein's general relativity theory. The differential equations allow for it, they searched for it, and found something that accords with the results of those differential equations with those ICs.
As for the higgs boson, it's a mixture of both. But that's irrelevant here.
Who said it was? But many sciences are historical sciences. That does not remove them from the realm of testability an empiricism. Geology, paleontology, archaeology... these are all historical sciences. And a theory of history is as scientific as any other theory used to explain the empirical data of the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire
Within the name "evolution" are some scientific theories but a whole lot of natural history glued together by hypothesis. People blanket all of this as a 'scientific theory' when it isn't.
It is not clear that you honestly have a clue what you are talking about. All sciences have areas that are understood better than others, that are more or less theoretical than others, that tentatively fill in the gaps with hypothesis and conjecture. Those are the guideposts that lead scientists to areas of fruitful investigation. And science is a human enterprise.
This is one of the fundamental ways in which we can distinguish between the science of biological evolution and the pseudoscience of creationism. Science is fruitful. It leads us to new avenues of discovery and research. It actually poses questions for which the answers must still be found.
Creationism poses no questions. It solves no problems. It leads to no new information and is barren of intellectual fruit. Creationism has all the answers and the answer is always the same: "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it."
There is a reason that, in spite of its imperfections, science has become the single most successful human endeavor in all of history. And at its core is the rejection of the creationist answer in all fields. Not just in biology, and not just the historical sciences. Creationism renders all of modern science from chemistry to biology to physics completely incoherent.
THIS is what observation shows. If you can't connect the dots there's no one stopping you from sitting a few plays out and thinking real hard about the implications of this graphic.
It would probably be in your best interest at this point...
And what does that graphic really represent? Other than pictures showing anatomical similarities in the use of flesh and bones, absolutely nothing, that's what! A whole lot of things can share similarities and not be evidence of evolution. It's a thoroughly nonsensical attempt at connecting them ... similar to suggesting that because they share such a remarkable similarity, real diamonds and CZ diamonds originated from the same source, which we all know is just absurd.
But let's not rely on such elementary school concepts to prove your point ... lets tackle a bigger fish. Show us the similarities between the next two examples of life (which according to evolution all things share a common ancestor):
Let's compare this bunch:
And this bunch:
Now, you may show us the similarities that prove beyond a reasonable doubt how these two bunches are related?
Keep in mind something while considering this exercise ... humans and trees and bananas share about 55% of their DNA ... that figure jumps to 60% when comparing humans to insects ... 75% when comparing us to reptiles ... 90+% when comparing to other mammals, and 98% when compared to a chimp, who is supposed to be a closest "relative".
By using these baseless comparisons ... either visual, anatomical or genetic similarities, in the case of the latter, you're really saying that humans are half-bananas. While such an idea is preposterous ... figuratively speaking ... I'd say only those believing in evolution are bananas ... and maybe even more than 55% too!
Or common ancestry, which is what I meant. Give me a piece of evidence for this assertion that can't be explained some other way.
Endogenous retroviruses cannot be explained any other way.
We know what they are, how they are generated, and what happens to them afterwards. There is absolutely nothing theoretical about them.
And we know that two individuals who share an identical ERV in an identical location on the genome cannot have developed them independently. That can only have been inherited from a common ancestor... specifically from the individual who had the original viral infection that generated the ERV.
Humans and Chimpanzees share about a dozen identical ERVs.
Apparently how primate ancestors (if I believed your fantasy world) survived just fine without speech. Why the change?
Actually, most animals do communicate with one another. The fact that humans don't understand the languages of other animals doesn't mean that those languages don't exist. Animals communicate with each other. And other animals use tools. And other animals have complex social structures. We don't actually know the degree that other animals are self-aware. We don't actually understand the complexity that might exist in other animals' methods of communication. The fact that animals do communicate, though, indicates that communication provides an evolutionary advantage, and for humans, with their physical limitations, communication skills probably had to be developed to ensure evolutionary survival.
And what does that graphic really represent? Other than pictures showing anatomical similarities in the use of flesh and bones, absolutely nothing, that's what! A whole lot of things can share similarities and not be evidence of evolution. It's a thoroughly nonsensical attempt at connecting them ... similar to suggesting that because they share such a remarkable similarity, real diamonds and CZ diamonds originated from the same source, which we all know is just absurd.
But let's not rely on such elementary school concepts to prove your point ... lets tackle a bigger fish. Show us the similarities between the next two examples of life (which according to evolution all things share a common ancestor):
Let's compare this bunch:
And this bunch:
Now, you may show us the similarities that prove beyond a reasonable doubt how these two bunches are related?
Keep in mind something while considering this exercise ... humans and trees and bananas share about 55% of their DNA ... that figure jumps to 60% when comparing humans to insects ... 75% when comparing us to reptiles ... 90+% when comparing to other mammals, and 98% when compared to a chimp, who is supposed to be a closest "relative".
By using these baseless comparisons ... either visual, anatomical or genetic similarities, in the case of the latter, you're really saying that humans are half-bananas. While such an idea is preposterous ... figuratively speaking ... I'd say only those believing in evolution are bananas ... and maybe even more than 55% too!
What?
Every living thing has DNA, of course there are similarities.
Think of DNA as a binary code. A programmer makes a calculator program and a screensaver. Nobody is claiming that, because there are similar coding sequences, my screensaver half calculator program. Absurd correlation.
Everything evolved from single celled organisms. Some of those organisms evolved to be mobile and find food (animals), while others developed chlorophyll to produce their own food using sunlight. Similarly, nobody is claiming palm trees are half algae...
It is not clear that you honestly have a clue what you are talking about. All sciences have areas that are understood better than others, that are more or less theoretical than others, that tentatively fill in the gaps with hypothesis and conjecture. Those are the guideposts that lead scientists to areas of fruitful investigation. And science is a human enterprise.
Like I said the problem with much of 'evolutionary theory' (and biological "science") in general is that mathematics penetrates few of her theories. much of it is just so explanations that observations can be twisted into and out of as easily as creativity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
