| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| In regards of scientific theories. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 26 2016, 09:19 AM (2,978 Views) | |
| SpeedoTrunks | Jan 26 2016, 06:12 PM Post #16 |
![]()
|
The birth of a theory is the idea, but for this to be accepted into the scientific community, there has to be evidence to back it up. IE: The Theory of Evolution, started as an idea, but we have come to understand this much much more since 1859, with evidence from all over the world. |
![]() |
|
| + Pointer | Jan 26 2016, 06:15 PM Post #17 |
![]()
...
![]()
|
Umm, list them, would you? Show me an evidence of macroevolution Evolution theory is still a theory and therefore not a fact, as its name implies
Edited by Pointer, Jan 26 2016, 06:16 PM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| FutureProtagonist | Jan 26 2016, 06:30 PM Post #18 |
![]()
Quwrof Wrlccywrlir
![]()
|
Knock yourself out: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html I like the way they put it: "Words are not the master of science; science is, or should be, the master of its words. But we can inquire how scientists use their words, and whether they use them consistently. And having done that, we can inquire whether others who are not scientists read too much into them, or use them in a totally different way." Does the bolded sound familiar? "In summary, there is no barrier to species forming. This may not be enough to show that large-scale macroevolution occurs, though, according to writers like Johnson and Hitching (1982), but the logic here implies some causal force actively preventing change, rather than a problem with change occurring. For if there is enough change to form new species, and each species is slightly different from its ancestor, then simple addition shows that many speciation events can cause large-scale evolution over enough time. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Conversely, many single steps can traverse long distances. There is no evidence of any kind of barriers to large-scale change (Brauer and Brumbaugh 2001), although creationists are free to offer some." "We can test a particular claim of macroevolution. We can test, for example, if weasels are more closely related to red pandas than bears are (Flynn and Nedbal 1998, Flynn et al. 2000). This is a test of a particular evolutionary tree or scenario. It tests a historical reconstruction. If shown, on the basis of the evidence and the best data, to be wrong, then that history has indeed been falsified. But can we test the idea of common descent? It is not possible to show that something never occurred, but it is very easy to show that where it ought to occur, it either has or it hasn't. Science will not retain a bad idea when it is shown repeatedly not to explain what we have a right to expect it to explain (this is one reason why creationism was dropped from science back in the 1850s). If macroevolution persistently were shown to run counter to the data, then science would drop it and look for another solution." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html Skip to section five to see myriad observed instances of speciation. |
|
I love building PCs. If you have any questions about it feel free to ask. I can help you with almost any kind of PC you'd want to build. Join DBZeta | |
![]() |
|
| + Pointer | Jan 26 2016, 07:45 PM Post #19 |
![]()
...
![]()
|
Yet the lacks of those skeletal ramains what are actually the missing links during the process Nice summary though |
| |
![]() |
|
| Buuberries | Jan 26 2016, 08:10 PM Post #20 |
![]()
No
![]()
|
Evolution is a fact whether you believe it's a fact or not, lol. People have theories on evolution -- i.e., to explain how it works, for example the theory of evolution by natural selection -- but evolution itself is a fact. |
| ¯\(°_o)/¯ | |
![]() |
|
| * Mitas | Jan 26 2016, 08:18 PM Post #21 |
![]()
It truly was a Shawshank redemption
![]()
|
The fact that you are still taking the word 'theory' on it's literal definition after a billion posts explaining that the scientific 'theory' works under an altered definition means that there is no point in this topic continuing. |
|
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time." "Next time?" "Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is." | |
![]() |
|
| Dankness Lava | Jan 26 2016, 08:29 PM Post #22 |
![]()
Dankness Forever
![]()
|
I don't care how ignorant i come off as for this, but where's the proof? I'm expecting mockery but that's okay. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Gearfried | Jan 26 2016, 08:57 PM Post #23 |
![]()
|
Then you have some certain science figure heads saying the big bang theory will soon be the big bang law. like its a solid fact. |
http://pixiv.me/hajime87 my tumblr page
| |
![]() |
|
| + Sandy Shore | Jan 26 2016, 09:00 PM Post #24 |
![]()
|
All those fossils not doing it for you? What about all the different races of people alive today, that all have common ancestors? All those breeds of cats and dogs which we designed through selective breeding? There is a plethora of evidence for organisms changing, and adapting over time due to natural selection and/or selective breeding. If you can't see the proof, it's only because you don't want to. |
![]() |
|
| Dankness Lava | Jan 26 2016, 09:04 PM Post #25 |
![]()
Dankness Forever
![]()
|
Ah okay, that's what's being referred to. I believe in natural adaptation, just not the part about starting from a single celled organism. |
| |
![]() |
|
| + Sandy Shore | Jan 26 2016, 09:08 PM Post #26 |
![]()
|
Understanding that organisms can change and adapt over time, why do you have such a hard time with it starting from a single cell? |
![]() |
|
| Tinny | Jan 26 2016, 09:19 PM Post #27 |
![]() ![]()
|
the single celled organism eventually would evolve into multi-celled organisms, and so on until we have stuff like trilobites and other animals that can actually be recognized as such rather than cellular organism. There was allot of time between then and the time of complex animals. Edited by Tinny, Jan 26 2016, 09:20 PM.
|
![]() Above signature created by Graffiti
| |
![]() |
|
| Dankness Lava | Jan 26 2016, 09:32 PM Post #28 |
![]()
Dankness Forever
![]()
|
To answer this and to respond to Tin Man, I don't believe life on earth has existed for millions of years. I however don't wish for this thread to get too off topic, so perhaps another thread can be made regarding this discussion. |
| |
![]() |
|
| * Mitas | Jan 26 2016, 09:35 PM Post #29 |
![]()
It truly was a Shawshank redemption
![]()
|
So you don't believe in dinosaurs? |
|
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time." "Next time?" "Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is." | |
![]() |
|
| Dankness Lava | Jan 26 2016, 09:38 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Dankness Forever
![]()
|
I do, but I don't see why they necessarily have to be that old. But you guys seem to be more informed on such, so maybe evidence can be brought to the table. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 0 users reading this topic | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:49 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy





















4:49 PM Jul 13