When the Pope Dies

[Viceroy63]

Barrak...you're just plain wrong. I don't know how you managed to skip over all the parts of that document that would've explained that to you. It seems as though you've been brainwashed. It's ok. Evolution doesn't dispute your white haired man in the clouds that preforms magic tricks from another dimension. You can keep believing in whatever you want. But natty is correct.

Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is the scientific theory proposed by Charles Darwin to explain and understand this fact. And yes, there is a destinct difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

Did I say I believe a religious explanation? No. At no point in this debate have I attempted to peddle Creationism. I'm simply trying to help natty understand that we have no way of knowing for certain where humans came from, and so his trying to force evolution theory onto every passing Christian is not just futile but also moronic. He has no greater understanding of our origins than they do.

There is very little practical difference between a theory and a scientific theory. The only difference is that a scientific theory is back by empirical research. This doesn't magically make it the 100% truth. Trying to refute religion using science is like trying to invalidate a poem with a painting. They're two totally different spectrums.

'Rocks are solid' is a fact. Evolution is a theory.

You're kind of like PLAYER in that you require 100% certainty on anything to be a scientific fact. You may as well doubt the claim that Santa is fiction because there's some tiny bit of certainty that Santa does exist. There's historic accounts of his magical feats, there's pictures of him at the mall, there's presents under the tree. We don't know with 100% certainty if Santa's existence is true or false. With your logic, you'll have to be agnostic on this one.

What are you trying to say here Stallin? Do you mean that it's possible that santa might not be real??? That He is only a,,,,, "THEORY!"

Oh, God, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

[Viceroy63]

When the Pope dies in a forest, does anybody care?

No Stallin; I think you got that wrong dude. It's; "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it still make a sound." Ok. You welcome.

[Viceroy63]

How do we know that God is an anybody?

Because...

You're nobody till some body loves you.
You're nobody till some body cares.
You may be king, you may possess the world and it's gold.
But gold wont buy you happiness when you're growing old.

[Viceroy63]

"In the study of biological species, the facts include the existence of many different species in existence today, some very similar to each other and some very dissimilar, the remains of extinct species in the fossil record, and so forth. In species that rapidly reproduce, for example fruit flies, the process of change from generation to generation — that is, evolutionary change — has been observed in the laboratory. The observation of fruit fly populations changing over time is also an example of a fact. So evolution is a fact just as observations of gravity are factual."

qouted from the 2nd wikipedia article natty posted yesterday. Guessing you missed that part?

If evolution is JUST a theory, then any given religion is JUST an opinion.

That is so true, that it is not even funny!

[Symmetry]

10 posts in a row? Seriously?

[natty dread]

You have to remember that Adam and Eve lived to be almost a thousand years old. They were also like 14 and 12 foot tall. They were as close to perfection as you and I can imagine. Talk about the master race!?

At any rate Adam and Eve are not responsible for the entire world that we see today; Just the pre flooded world up to Noah and his wife and his 3 sons and their 3 wives. They were the ones from whence this post flood world came from.

As to diversity? While Evolution is impossible, Mutations are not. God did provide for the human DNA to adapt to adverse conditions by mutating for optimal survivability. That is why you see Whites, Blacks, Yellows and any other colors. We have all adopted to our parts of the world.

Nice story, bro.

I guess if you close your eyes to all the evidence and rational thinking, that could kind of make sense.

[Viceroy63]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evoluti ... ition.html

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:


"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

Viceroy63 here:
In other words the definitions of the words Evolution and Mutations are being used interchangeably by researchers and writers of scientific papers when it suites their needs and not to talk honestly about what the real issue is. Why should this be? Because in the real world the truth is not the equivalent of money while writing papers is. So it's either print or perish. Even if you must twist or manipulate the truth to do so.

The truth is that no one has ever witness over the course of millions of years an ape evolve into a human. So how can one say that the evolution of species is an observable fact and not a theory? Mutations are facts but they are not Evolutions as is meant by Darwinism and his book, "The Origin of Species." Which by the way, is not really his book but a work that had "Evolved" from the time of his father's father and Darwin finished the work.

So then, when people speak of the fruit flies and the spotted moth, "Evolving" from one species to another, they are incorrectly using the term "Evolving," for the term, "Mutating." Thereby concluding that Evolution is an observable fact and not a theory. This really is inexcusable for any intelligent person to accept. It's as inexcusable as that sick joke that it's only rape because the woman said "No."

It all comes down to the definitions of the words we use. If we are willing to use words interchangeably then the conversation is not worth a damn having. For if you say that "The man committed suicide" and I say that it was "murder?" then why are we even talking. Both terms can not describe the same situation in the conversation. Like wise it can not be Mutation and Evolution because both terms can not and should not be used interchangeably to support our belief as we see fit. Again, it is just inexcusably for intelligent people to play such games. If we can not be honest about the use and the meaning of our words then there really is nothing to talk about.

[Viceroy63]

10 posts in a row? Seriously?

Can't sleep tonight.

[Symmetry]

It all comes down to the definitions of the words we use. If we are willing to use words interchangeably then the conversation is not worth a damn having. For if you say that "The man committed suicide" and I say that it was "murder?" then why are we even talking. Both terms can not describe the same situation in the conversation. Like wise it can not be Mutation and Evolution because both terms can not and should not be used interchangeably to support our belief as we see fit. Again, it is just inexcusably for intelligent people to play such games. If we can not be honest about the use and the meaning of our words then there really is nothing to talk about.

So what's your definition of "theory"? Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.

What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean something that suddenly makes a "theory" into a "fact".

And lastly what do you mean by "evolution" if you exclude genetic changes over time?

Scientific theories are testable and can be disproven.

[Viceroy63]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:


"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

Viceroy63 here:
In other words the definitions of the words Evolution and Mutations are being used interchangeably by researchers and writers of scientific papers when it suites their needs and not to talk honestly about what the real issue is. Why should this be? Because in the real world the truth is not the equivalent of money while writing papers is. So it's either print or perish. Even if you must twist or manipulate the truth to do so.

The truth is that no one has ever witness over the course of millions of years an ape evolve into a human. So how can one say that the evolution of species is an observable fact and not a theory? Mutations are facts but they are not Evolutions as is meant by Darwinism and his book, "The Origin of Species." Which by the way, is not really his book but a work that had "Evolved" from the time of his father's father and Darwin finished the work.

So then, when people speak of the fruit flies and the spotted moth, "Evolving" from one species to another, they are incorrectly using the term "Evolving," for the term, "Mutating." Thereby concluding that Evolution is an observable fact and not a theory. This really is inexcusable for any intelligent person to accept. It's as inexcusable as that sick joke that it's only rape because the woman said "No."

It all comes down to the definitions of the words we use. If we are willing to use words interchangeably then the conversation is not worth a damn having. For if you say that "The man committed suicide" and I say that it was "murder?" then why are we even talking. Both terms can not describe the same situation in the conversation. Like wise it can not be Mutation and Evolution because both terms can not and should not be used interchangeably to support our belief as we see fit. Again, it is just inexcusably for intelligent people to play such games. If we can not be honest about the use and the meaning of our words then there really is nothing to talk about.

So what's your definition of "theory"? Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.
- Theory = an unproven explanation of an idea. A supposition or a likey story of something yet to be determined.

What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean something that suddenly makes a "theory" into a "fact".
- Proof = The undeniable fact of a thing. Example; Boiling Water is hot. Proof, put your hands into the boiling water and try to deny it.

And lastly what do you mean by "evolution" if you exclude genetic changes over time?
- Evolution = Man evolved from ape. This is the origin of species as laid out in Darwins book, "The Origin of Species." The meaning of the word "Evolution is then the Origen of One species from another species.

Scientific theories are testable and can be disproven.

So what's your definition of "theory"? Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.

- Theory = an unproven explanation of an idea. A supposition or a likey story of something yet to be determined.

What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean something that suddenly makes a "theory" into a "fact".

- Proof = The undeniable fact of a thing. Example; Boiling Water is hot. Proof, put your hands into the boiling water and try to deny it.

And lastly what do you mean by "evolution" if you exclude genetic changes over time?

- Evolution = Man evolved from ape. This is the origin of species as laid out in Darwins book, "The Origin of Species." The meaning of the word "Evolution is then the Origen of One species from another species.

[natty dread]

Only people who don't "believe" in evolution are people who have ulterior motives not to believe in it. They don't want to believe in evolution, because it contradicts their presupposed beliefs, therefore: evolution must be false...

If these people would just look at the evidence with an open mind, they would see that the theory of evolution is a well-supported scientifical theory that can be equated to a scientific fact.

[natty dread]

- Theory = an unproven explanation of an idea. A supposition or a likey story of something yet to be determined.

Incorrect. A scientific theory is a framework that explains already observed phenomena. To be scientifically valid, a theory must also predict new phenomena, which can be observed and thus the theory can be either disproved or strengthened.

A theory that has sufficiently strong evidence to back it up is interchangeable with fact.

This is the scientific definition of the word "theory". You can disagree with it, but it doesn't change the fact that this is how theory is defined in a scientific context.

What you describe is known as a "hypothesis".

- Evolution = Man evolved from ape.

Also incorrect. Evolution does not posit that "man evolved from ape", instead it says that current humans and other current primates (apes, monkeys) evolved from the same common ancestor. Also, when you go far enough back, all the lifeforms on earth evolved from the same common ancestor.

[Symmetry]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:


"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

Viceroy63 here:
In other words the definitions of the words Evolution and Mutations are being used interchangeably by researchers and writers of scientific papers when it suites their needs and not to talk honestly about what the real issue is. Why should this be? Because in the real world the truth is not the equivalent of money while writing papers is. So it's either print or perish. Even if you must twist or manipulate the truth to do so.

The truth is that no one has ever witness over the course of millions of years an ape evolve into a human. So how can one say that the evolution of species is an observable fact and not a theory? Mutations are facts but they are not Evolutions as is meant by Darwinism and his book, "The Origin of Species." Which by the way, is not really his book but a work that had "Evolved" from the time of his father's father and Darwin finished the work.

So then, when people speak of the fruit flies and the spotted moth, "Evolving" from one species to another, they are incorrectly using the term "Evolving," for the term, "Mutating." Thereby concluding that Evolution is an observable fact and not a theory. This really is inexcusable for any intelligent person to accept. It's as inexcusable as that sick joke that it's only rape because the woman said "No."

It all comes down to the definitions of the words we use. If we are willing to use words interchangeably then the conversation is not worth a damn having. For if you say that "The man committed suicide" and I say that it was "murder?" then why are we even talking. Both terms can not describe the same situation in the conversation. Like wise it can not be Mutation and Evolution because both terms can not and should not be used interchangeably to support our belief as we see fit. Again, it is just inexcusably for intelligent people to play such games. If we can not be honest about the use and the meaning of our words then there really is nothing to talk about.

So what's your definition of "theory"? Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.
- Theory = an unproven explanation of an idea. A supposition or a likey story of something yet to be determined.

What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean something that suddenly makes a "theory" into a "fact".
- Proof = The undeniable fact of a thing. Example; Boiling Water is hot. Proof, put your hands into the boiling water and try to deny it.

And lastly what do you mean by "evolution" if you exclude genetic changes over time?
- Evolution = Man evolved from ape. This is the origin of species as laid out in Darwins book, "The Origin of Species." The meaning of the word "Evolution is then the Origen of One species from another species.

Scientific theories are testable and can be disproven.

So what's your definition of "theory"? Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.

- Theory = an unproven explanation of an idea. A supposition or a likey story of something yet to be determined.

What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean something that suddenly makes a "theory" into a "fact".

- Proof = The undeniable fact of a thing. Example; Boiling Water is hot. Proof, put your hands into the boiling water and try to deny it.

And lastly what do you mean by "evolution" if you exclude genetic changes over time?

- Evolution = Man evolved from ape. This is the origin of species as laid out in Darwins book, "The Origin of Species." The meaning of the word "Evolution is then the Origen of One species from another species.

Thanks for the reply, but I think this may be the problem you're having with other posters. A theory in science isn't something that's unproven. For example, you might know Pythagoras' theorem, for which many proofs exist, but remains a theory.

A proof is a test. The technical meaning of the word is largely lost, but you might have seen it in phrases like "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", or the "exception that proves the rule". That last one makes no sense unless you see proof as equalling "test".

Darwin is not the be all and end all of evolutionary theory, nor did he say that evolution was about men evolving from apes. Common ancestry is part of evolutionary theory, but not quite in the way you put it. Apes and men evolved from a common ancestor.

Equating evolution with Darwin is a little like calling gravitational theory "Newtonism".

[Viceroy63]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:


"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

Viceroy63 here:
In other words the definitions of the words Evolution and Mutations are being used interchangeably by researchers and writers of scientific papers when it suites their needs and not to talk honestly about what the real issue is. Why should this be? Because in the real world the truth is not the equivalent of money while writing papers is. So it's either print or perish. Even if you must twist or manipulate the truth to do so.

The truth is that no one has ever witness over the course of millions of years an ape evolve into a human. So how can one say that the evolution of species is an observable fact and not a theory? Mutations are facts but they are not Evolutions as is meant by Darwinism and his book, "The Origin of Species." Which by the way, is not really his book but a work that had "Evolved" from the time of his father's father and Darwin finished the work.

So then, when people speak of the fruit flies and the spotted moth, "Evolving" from one species to another, they are incorrectly using the term "Evolving," for the term, "Mutating." Thereby concluding that Evolution is an observable fact and not a theory. This really is inexcusable for any intelligent person to accept. It's as inexcusable as that sick joke that it's only rape because the woman said "No."

It all comes down to the definitions of the words we use. If we are willing to use words interchangeably then the conversation is not worth a damn having. For if you say that "The man committed suicide" and I say that it was "murder?" then why are we even talking. Both terms can not describe the same situation in the conversation. Like wise it can not be Mutation and Evolution because both terms can not and should not be used interchangeably to support our belief as we see fit. Again, it is just inexcusably for intelligent people to play such games. If we can not be honest about the use and the meaning of our words then there really is nothing to talk about.

So what's your definition of "theory"? Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.
- Theory = an unproven explanation of an idea. A supposition or a likey story of something yet to be determined.

What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean something that suddenly makes a "theory" into a "fact".
- Proof = The undeniable fact of a thing. Example; Boiling Water is hot. Proof, put your hands into the boiling water and try to deny it.

And lastly what do you mean by "evolution" if you exclude genetic changes over time?
- Evolution = Man evolved from ape. This is the origin of species as laid out in Darwins book, "The Origin of Species." The meaning of the word "Evolution is then the Origen of One species from another species.

Scientific theories are testable and can be disproven.

So what's your definition of "theory"? Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.

- Theory = an unproven explanation of an idea. A supposition or a likey story of something yet to be determined.

What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean something that suddenly makes a "theory" into a "fact".

- Proof = The undeniable fact of a thing. Example; Boiling Water is hot. Proof, put your hands into the boiling water and try to deny it.

And lastly what do you mean by "evolution" if you exclude genetic changes over time?

- Evolution = Man evolved from ape. This is the origin of species as laid out in Darwins book, "The Origin of Species." The meaning of the word "Evolution is then the Origen of One species from another species.

Thanks for the reply, but I think this may be the problem you're having with other posters. A theory in science isn't something that's unproven. For example, you might know Pythagoras' theorem, for which many proofs exist, but remains a theory.

A proof is a test. The technical meaning of the word is largely lost, but you might have seen it in phrases like "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", or the "exception that proves the rule". That last one makes no sense unless you see proof as equalling "test".

Darwin is not the be all and end all of evolutionary theory, nor did he say that evolution was about men evolving from apes. Common ancestry is part of evolutionary theory, but not quite in the way you put it. Apes and men evolved from a common ancestor.

Equating evolution with Darwin is a little like calling gravitational theory "Newtonism".

And lastly what do you mean by "evolution" if you exclude genetic changes over time?
- Evolution = Man evolved from ape. This is the origin of species as laid out in Darwins book, "The Origin of Species." The meaning of the word "Evolution is then the Origen of One species from another species."

"Evolution is then the Origen of One species from another species."

[Viceroy63]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evoluti ... ition.html

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:


"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

Viceroy63 here:
In other words the definitions of the words Evolution and Mutations are being used interchangeably by researchers and writers of scientific papers when it suites their needs and not to talk honestly about what the real issue is. Why should this be? Because in the real world the truth is not the equivalent of money while writing papers is. So it's either print or perish. Even if you must twist or manipulate the truth to do so.

The truth is that no one has ever witness over the course of millions of years an ape evolve into a human. So how can one say that the evolution of species is an observable fact and not a theory? Mutations are facts but they are not Evolutions as is meant by Darwinism and his book, "The Origin of Species." Which by the way, is not really his book but a work that had "Evolved" from the time of his father's father and Darwin finished the work.

So then, when people speak of the fruit flies and the spotted moth, "Evolving" from one species to another, they are incorrectly using the term "Evolving," for the term, "Mutating." Thereby concluding that Evolution is an observable fact and not a theory. This really is inexcusable for any intelligent person to accept. It's as inexcusable as that sick joke that it's only rape because the woman said "No."

It all comes down to the definitions of the words we use. If we are willing to use words interchangeably then the conversation is not worth a damn having. For if you say that "The man committed suicide" and I say that it was "murder?" then why are we even talking. Both terms can not describe the same situation in the conversation. Like wise it can not be Mutation and Evolution because both terms can not and should not be used interchangeably to support our belief as we see fit. Again, it is just inexcusably for intelligent people to play such games. If we can not be honest about the use and the meaning of our words then there really is nothing to talk about.

So what's your definition of "theory"? Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.
- Theory = an unproven explanation of an idea. A supposition or a likey story of something yet to be determined.

What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean something that suddenly makes a "theory" into a "fact".
- Proof = The undeniable fact of a thing. Example; Boiling Water is hot. Proof, put your hands into the boiling water and try to deny it.

And lastly what do you mean by "evolution" if you exclude genetic changes over time?
- Evolution = Man evolved from ape. This is the origin of species as laid out in Darwins book, "The Origin of Species." The meaning of the word "Evolution is then the Origen of One species from another species.

Scientific theories are testable and can be disproven.

So what's your definition of "theory"? Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.

- Theory = an unproven explanation of an idea. A supposition or a likey story of something yet to be determined.

What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean something that suddenly makes a "theory" into a "fact".

- Proof = The undeniable fact of a thing. Example; Boiling Water is hot. Proof, put your hands into the boiling water and try to deny it.

And lastly what do you mean by "evolution" if you exclude genetic changes over time?

- Evolution = Man evolved from ape. This is the origin of species as laid out in Darwins book, "The Origin of Species." The meaning of the word "Evolution is then the Origen of One species from another species.

Thanks for the reply, but I think this may be the problem you're having with other posters. A theory in science isn't something that's unproven. For example, you might know Pythagoras' theorem, for which many proofs exist, but remains a theory.

A proof is a test. The technical meaning of the word is largely lost, but you might have seen it in phrases like "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", or the "exception that proves the rule". That last one makes no sense unless you see proof as equalling "test".

Darwin is not the be all and end all of evolutionary theory, nor did he say that evolution was about men evolving from apes. Common ancestry is part of evolutionary theory, but not quite in the way you put it. Apes and men evolved from a common ancestor.

Equating evolution with Darwin is a little like calling gravitational theory "Newtonism".

Thanks for the reply, but I think this may be the problem you're having with other posters. A theory in science isn't something that's unproven. For example, you might know Pythagoras' theorem, for which many proofs exist, but remains a theory.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

[natty dread]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

That is not the scientific definition of theory. That is the colloquial use of the word "theory", but it is not what is meant with "theory" in a scientific context.

Basically, that dictionary sucks balls.

[chang50]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evoluti ... ition.html

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:


"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.

Viceroy63 here:
In other words the definitions of the words Evolution and Mutations are being used interchangeably by researchers and writers of scientific papers when it suites their needs and not to talk honestly about what the real issue is. Why should this be? Because in the real world the truth is not the equivalent of money while writing papers is. So it's either print or perish. Even if you must twist or manipulate the truth to do so.

The truth is that no one has ever witness over the course of millions of years an ape evolve into a human. So how can one say that the evolution of species is an observable fact and not a theory? Mutations are facts but they are not Evolutions as is meant by Darwinism and his book, "The Origin of Species." Which by the way, is not really his book but a work that had "Evolved" from the time of his father's father and Darwin finished the work.

So then, when people speak of the fruit flies and the spotted moth, "Evolving" from one species to another, they are incorrectly using the term "Evolving," for the term, "Mutating." Thereby concluding that Evolution is an observable fact and not a theory. This really is inexcusable for any intelligent person to accept. It's as inexcusable as that sick joke that it's only rape because the woman said "No."

It all comes down to the definitions of the words we use. If we are willing to use words interchangeably then the conversation is not worth a damn having. For if you say that "The man committed suicide" and I say that it was "murder?" then why are we even talking. Both terms can not describe the same situation in the conversation. Like wise it can not be Mutation and Evolution because both terms can not and should not be used interchangeably to support our belief as we see fit. Again, it is just inexcusably for intelligent people to play such games. If we can not be honest about the use and the meaning of our words then there really is nothing to talk about.

So what's your definition of "theory"? Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.
- Theory = an unproven explanation of an idea. A supposition or a likey story of something yet to be determined.

What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean something that suddenly makes a "theory" into a "fact".
- Proof = The undeniable fact of a thing. Example; Boiling Water is hot. Proof, put your hands into the boiling water and try to deny it.

And lastly what do you mean by "evolution" if you exclude genetic changes over time?
- Evolution = Man evolved from ape. This is the origin of species as laid out in Darwins book, "The Origin of Species." The meaning of the word "Evolution is then the Origen of One species from another species.

Scientific theories are testable and can be disproven.

So what's your definition of "theory"? Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.

- Theory = an unproven explanation of an idea. A supposition or a likey story of something yet to be determined.

What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean something that suddenly makes a "theory" into a "fact".

- Proof = The undeniable fact of a thing. Example; Boiling Water is hot. Proof, put your hands into the boiling water and try to deny it.

And lastly what do you mean by "evolution" if you exclude genetic changes over time?

- Evolution = Man evolved from ape. This is the origin of species as laid out in Darwins book, "The Origin of Species." The meaning of the word "Evolution is then the Origen of One species from another species.

Thanks for the reply, but I think this may be the problem you're having with other posters. A theory in science isn't something that's unproven. For example, you might know Pythagoras' theorem, for which many proofs exist, but remains a theory.

A proof is a test. The technical meaning of the word is largely lost, but you might have seen it in phrases like "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", or the "exception that proves the rule". That last one makes no sense unless you see proof as equalling "test".

Darwin is not the be all and end all of evolutionary theory, nor did he say that evolution was about men evolving from apes. Common ancestry is part of evolutionary theory, but not quite in the way you put it. Apes and men evolved from a common ancestor.

Equating evolution with Darwin is a little like calling gravitational theory "Newtonism".

Thanks for the reply, but I think this may be the problem you're having with other posters. A theory in science isn't something that's unproven. For example, you might know Pythagoras' theorem, for which many proofs exist, but remains a theory.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

The first definition given in your link is of a SCIENTIFIC theory,which you opted to ignore(conveniently),in favour of the second which is of a NON-SCIENTIFIC,GENERAL USAGE,of the word.Still not decided if you are just trolling,or...you never can quite tell with theists

[Viceroy63]

It all comes down to the definitions of the words we use. If we are willing to use words interchangeably then the conversation is not worth a damn having. For if you say that "The man committed suicide" and I say that it was "murder?" then why are we even talking. Both terms can not describe the same situation in the conversation. Like wise it can not be Mutation and Evolution because both terms can not and should not be used interchangeably to support our belief as we see fit. Again, it is just inexcusably for intelligent people to play such games. If we can not be honest about the use and the meaning of our words then there really is nothing to talk about.

So what's your definition of "theory"? Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.

What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean something that suddenly makes a "theory" into a "fact".

And lastly what do you mean by "evolution" if you exclude genetic changes over time?

Scientific theories are testable and can be disproven.

Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.

Do you really believe that men of science are not using words interchangeably for the betterment of their employment? That they are not writing Papers in order to be recognize but are in fact writing the truth using words as they are meant to be used with out manipulating any facts what so ever?

I will admit that I have not read the book, "The Origin of Species." Have you? But I do know that it proposes that all species came to evolve from lower life forms. I got this from the Carl Sagan Series, "Cosmos" on PBS television. So I said Ape? Big deal. Perhaps it was a monkey. I don't know that either. Does it really matter if it were a raccoon instead? I know that it was a lower life form.

The point is that, "Evolution" means the origin of Species from lower life forms. This is the main thread from the book, "Origin of Species." The book also offers an explanation for the vast diversity of life inferring Mutations. But the point and the meaning of the word, "Evolution" according to the book, is that all life came to "EVOLVE" from lower life forms and so that is the meaning that I use for that word. In it's rightful context and not it's manipulated one.

I do not have any problem understanding the dictionary meanings of words and their intended meaning and use. The problem lies with those who choose to accept as evidence what truly is not. And that is a crying shame. In a world base on lies and the almighty dollar, many seemingly intelligent people are run over by the truck of Propaganda and Popular opinion. Just because everyone is of the opinion that we evolve from lower life forms does not make it so. When I see with my own eyes an entire species born from a lessor species, when I see Dogs born from Rabbits, then I will have all the proof that I need. Until then, it is just a “THEORY.”

[chang50]

It all comes down to the definitions of the words we use. If we are willing to use words interchangeably then the conversation is not worth a damn having. For if you say that "The man committed suicide" and I say that it was "murder?" then why are we even talking. Both terms can not describe the same situation in the conversation. Like wise it can not be Mutation and Evolution because both terms can not and should not be used interchangeably to support our belief as we see fit. Again, it is just inexcusably for intelligent people to play such games. If we can not be honest about the use and the meaning of our words then there really is nothing to talk about.

So what's your definition of "theory"? Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.

What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean something that suddenly makes a "theory" into a "fact".

And lastly what do you mean by "evolution" if you exclude genetic changes over time?

Scientific theories are testable and can be disproven.

Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.

Do you really believe that men of science are not using words interchangeably for the betterment of their employment? That they are not writing Papers in order to be recognize but are in fact writing the truth using words as they are meant to be used with out manipulating any facts what so ever?

I will admit that I have not read the book, "The Origin of Species." Have you? But I do know that it proposes that all species came to evolve from lower life forms. I got this from the Carl Sagan Series, "Cosmos" on PBS television. So I said Ape? Big deal. Perhaps it was a monkey. I don't know that either. Does it really matter if it were a raccoon instead? I know that it was a lower life form.

The point is that, "Evolution" means the origin of Species from lower life forms. This is the main thread from the book, "Origin of Species." The book also offers an explanation for the vast diversity of life inferring Mutations. But the point and the meaning of the word, "Evolution" according to the book, is that all life came to "EVOLVE" from lower life forms and so that is the meaning that I use for that word. In it's rightful context and not it's manipulated one.

I do not have any problem understanding the dictionary meanings of words and their intended meaning and use. The problem lies with those who choose to accept as evidence what truly is not. And that is a crying shame. In a world base on lies and the almighty dollar, many seemingly intelligent people are run over by the truck of Propaganda and Popular opinion. Just because everyone is of the opinion that we evolve from lower life forms does not make it so. When I see with my own eyes an entire species born from a lessor species, when I see Dogs born from Rabbits, then I will have all the proof that I need. Until then, it is just a “THEORY.”

So why did you ignore the first definition of theory given in YOUR link?Btw Darwin's book was originally named 'On the origin of species',I can see you're not strong on details,but in discussions like this you have to have at least a rudimentary grasp of the subject.

[Symmetry]

Viceroy63:

It'd be appreciated if you could use the quote button when you're quoting me or other people. Just highlight the text that isn't yours and click the quote button before posting.

But aside from that, I have indeed read the Origin of Species. It's definitely worth a read even if you go into it with assumptions about what it's going to say. I'm no scientist, but purely for the history of ideas Darwin is up there with Marx and Freud for thinkers that transformed the way we look at ourselves in the 20th century. It's not too great an onus to pick up some of their writings before you criticise their ideas.

Richard Dawkins' books are a great introduction to modern evolutionary theory, and if you're interested in the wider debate, Stephen Jay Gould is an excellent counter. Dictionaries aren't the best place to learn about science, nor is TV.

[natty dread]

I do not have any problem understanding the dictionary meanings of words and their intended meaning and use. The problem lies with those who choose to accept as evidence what truly is not. And that is a crying shame. In a world base on lies and the almighty dollar, many seemingly intelligent people are run over by the truck of Propaganda and Popular opinion. Just because everyone is of the opinion that we evolve from lower life forms does not make it so. When I see with my own eyes an entire species born from a lessor species, when I see Dogs born from Rabbits, then I will have all the proof that I need. Until then, it is just a “THEORY.”

Haha, I love this guy already.

Bets on when he will mention the freemasons/illuminati and the New World Order?

[chang50]

I do not have any problem understanding the dictionary meanings of words and their intended meaning and use. The problem lies with those who choose to accept as evidence what truly is not. And that is a crying shame. In a world base on lies and the almighty dollar, many seemingly intelligent people are run over by the truck of Propaganda and Popular opinion. Just because everyone is of the opinion that we evolve from lower life forms does not make it so. When I see with my own eyes an entire species born from a lessor species, when I see Dogs born from Rabbits, then I will have all the proof that I need. Until then, it is just a “THEORY.”

Haha, I love this guy already.

Bets on when he will mention the freemasons/illuminati and the New World Order?

Maybe he's a secret atheist trying to make theists look stupid.If my six year old son produced this sort of nonesense I would be bitterly disappointed.

[Viceroy63]

- Theory = an unproven explanation of an idea. A supposition or a likely story of something yet to be determined.

Incorrect. A scientific theory is a framework that explains already observed phenomena. To be scientifically valid, a theory must also predict new phenomena, which can be observed and thus the theory can be either disproved or strengthened.

A theory that has sufficiently strong evidence to back it up is interchangeable with fact.

This is the scientific definition of the word "theory". You can disagree with it, but it doesn't change the fact that this is how theory is defined in a scientific context.

What you describe is known as a "hypothesis".

- Evolution = Man evolved from ape.

Also incorrect. Evolution does not posit that "man evolved from ape", instead it says that current humans and other current primates (apes, monkeys) evolved from the same common ancestor. Also, when you go far enough back, all the lifeforms on earth evolved from the same common ancestor.

This, by the way, is an excellent example of the scientific community manipulating and distorting the truth for their personal gain. To make their point seem like the only correct one in the eyes of everyone else. This is why the papers that they write must make print and be established because people want to go to and send their children to only the best and brightest universities no matter how much it cost and if the one where Viceroy63 went to must be false because Professor "Natty_Dread" just published that Viceroy63 said this and that and even published it so that it must be true, which means that "Natty_Dread's" University must be the best and the brightest and that is where billions perhaps even trillins of dollars shall be invested in.

And no one even cares about the fact that Professor "Natty_Dread" did not bother to print the whole statement made by Professor Viceroy63 only that it must be the correct answer because these professors must know what they are talking about. All the while the masses are duped by interchangeable words and exaggerations of the facts that when a moth changes colors, well it must be "Evolution" at work and not the industrial waste coming from the nearby factories and their chimney's. This is how evolution works, through small and tiny mutations that eventually bring about the birth of a more advance species from a lessor one. This is how humans evolved to become the dominant species on the planet.

Incidentally; That was not my whole answer to which you only chose to pick that part that makes me look bad. My answer was that Evolution is the origin of a new species from a lessor species. And that my dear professor is the crux of it all. That is why the book is called "The ORIGIN of Species." We may all be branches of the same tree according to that theory but the whole point to evolution is to evolve into greater life from a lessor one.

Also you said; And please take note that I am copying and pasting your whole answer and not just the part that I want to use to discredit you...

"Incorrect. A scientific theory is a framework that explains already observed phenomena. To be scientifically valid, a theory must also predict new phenomena, which can be observed and thus the theory can be either disproved or strengthened."

Now I ask you, If a theory can be either disproved or strengthened (your words not mine), then how can a theory be an observable fact? Unless it is a presumed fact, well, until it is disproved and then is no longer an observable "framework" that explains already observed phenomena?

Surely you can see where the exact meaning of a word is necessary in order to get some where in the conversation. Real life professors don't care about how they use their words or manipulate the topic so long as they get published and the Universities get accredited and their contracts at the said Universities renew and their salaries raised and that is all that matters to them. It's not about scientific truth but about money. And they don't care how many millions they have to mislead so long as they rake in the billions of dollars for their universities. That is the truth of it all. After all if some one else comes out with the truth in another paper, what does it matter so long as they are set up first and taken cared of first. Next year they will simply write another paper discrediting the truth that discredits them.

Also I want to make it perfectly clear that this will be my last comment reply on this thread. I thought that it would be fun to read a whole thread and see what the whole conversation was about but this thread started with one topic and ended with another. This does not make any sense and for my part I apologize to all who may be reading this thread. I should not have gone there. If anyone at all wishes to invite me to another thread to discus any topic including this one then please inform me by way of PM.

As to my vote, if the Pope gets promoted or fired when he dies; I really can't take that question very seriously as I don't acknowledge modern day “Christianity” as anything resembling something of Gods'. It resembles in practice, if not in truth, ancient pagan religions then anything else. So whether the Pope is promoted or fired, it is not by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

[natty dread]

Now I ask you, If a theory can be either disproved or strengthened (your words not mine), then how can a theory be an observable fact? Unless it is a presumed fact, well, until it is disproved and then is no longer an observable "framework" that explains already observed phenomena?

Because, my dear disciple, there's no such thing as a 100% certain fact. Nothing can be absolutely 100% proven. For example, we can never know if the entire universe is just a computer simulation, or on a more personal level, you can never prove that you exist, or that your memories are real - what if you were born this morning, and all of the memories of your past life are artificial? You can't know, and you can't prove either way.

When we say things like "it's a fact that the earth revolves around the sun" we mean that according to all our current observations, earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Based on those observations, we can make predictions that state "tomorrow morning, the sun will come up" which it probably will. But we can't prove it 100%, because it's in the future. Yet, it's considered a "fact" that the sun will "come up" the next morning, as it is considered a "fact" that the earth revolves around the sun.

Similarly, we have observed evolution to happen. There's enough evidence of it to call it a fact, just like there's enough evidence of the existence of the sun to call it a fact.

You might like there to be 100% certain facts, with no possible uncertainty, and that is probably why the easy answers of religion are so tempting to people - who wants to live in uncertainty, right? It's much simpler to just accept "god did it all" as an Irrefutable Truth that Can't Be Questioned Ever, and that's that. Who needs that "objective evidence" or "rational thinking" when you can just have some certainty, right?

Well, science doesn't work that way. Nothing in science is sacred, nothing is free from being questioned. If tomorrow some really strong evidence is found which irrefutably proves all the previous scientific theories wrong - yes, even evolution - then those theories are discarded, and new theories will be made based on the new evidence. However, so far all the evidence supports our current knowledge.

Surely you can see where the exact meaning of a word is necessary in order to get some where in the conversation. Real life professors don't care about how they use their words or manipulate the topic so long as they get published and the Universities get accredited and their contracts at the said Universities renew and their salaries raised and that is all that matters to them. It's not about scientific truth but about money. And they don't care how many millions they have to mislead so long as they rake in the billions of dollars for their universities. That is the truth of it all. After all if some one else comes out with the truth in another paper, what does it matter so long as they are set up first and taken cared of first. Next year they will simply write another paper discrediting the truth that discredits them.

And the NWO is behind it all, right?

It's so amusing when you godbots go through these mental gymnastics to justify your willful ignorance. Scientific evidence says something that contradicts my presupposed ideas? This can't be, they must be lying, they must be doing it for the money! They're purposefully misleading! After all, it can't be that MY beliefs would be false! I'd have to rethink my entire life and that'd be HORRIBLE!

[Woodruff]

It all comes down to the definitions of the words we use. If we are willing to use words interchangeably then the conversation is not worth a damn having. For if you say that "The man committed suicide" and I say that it was "murder?" then why are we even talking. Both terms can not describe the same situation in the conversation. Like wise it can not be Mutation and Evolution because both terms can not and should not be used interchangeably to support our belief as we see fit. Again, it is just inexcusably for intelligent people to play such games. If we can not be honest about the use and the meaning of our words then there really is nothing to talk about.

So what's your definition of "theory"? Presumably you aren't working under the same definition that others are using, i.e., that generally employed by scientists.

What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean something that suddenly makes a "theory" into a "fact".

And lastly what do you mean by "evolution" if you exclude genetic changes over time?

Scientific theories are testable and can be disproven.

I have it on good authority (did I really just call him that?) that religion is one of the sciences.