- Joined
- Jun 11, 2017
- Messages
- 5,544
- Reaction score
- 1,061
- Location
- Arizona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
God created the universe.
But what is the religious dogma that explains how it did happen?
God created the universe.
God created the universe.
You disagree with NCSE I do not yet you claim it is I who doesn't understand what a theory is!
No there are facts that are consistent with the expectations of evolutionary theory, just as there are facts that are consistent with Newtonian mechanics and facts that are consistent with Copernican theory, Galilean theory and so on.
A theory cannot exist without axioms, you persist in refusing to tell me if you even know what an axiom is though.
See - axiom.
Note:
I can only assume this is all new to you and that the pop-science books you've been eagerly consuming all these years never go into this kind of detail.
Now you say that facts and theories are different mutually interdependent things yet a few posts ago you wrote "There is no real distinction between facts and scientific theories"!
You should have said that at the outset then, I'd have been delighted to explain.
Yes it has David, it is described by its most ardent advocates as being a "fact" no other theory in the sciences is so described.
It is built upon axioms David and until you look up this term in a dictionary you'll continue to post embarrassing claims like this.
Why are you afraid to tell me what an axiom is?
We aren't talking about the universe, but about how mankind came to exist.
I was, I was also answering a question asked by somebody else.
It does not matter what advocates of the theory of evolution is called by some advocates.
All that matters is what it actually is and based upon. It is based upon facts, as all scientific theories are. No scientific theories are based on axioms. Without testable facts, there are no scientific theories.
And the question was about the origin of human life.
What are you talking about? did you mean to answer a different post?
Your Trumpian tactics won't work with me David, repeating endlessly that "scientific theories are not based on axioms" when every reputable definition of "theory" (including the National Center for Science Education) says the opposite makes you look rather foolish.
I refuse to waste time replying to someone who is unable to distinguish between true and false.
It is factual that scientific theories are not based on axioms. Provide evidence to the contrary.
Igor V. Volovich said:We shall present a list from seven axioms of quantum mechanics. The axioms are well known from various textbooks but normally they are not combined together. Then, these axioms define an axiomatic quantum mechanical framework. If some proposition is proved in this framework then it could be considered as an assertion in axiomatic quantum mechanics. Of course, the list of the axioms can be discussed but I feel that if we fix the list it can help to clarify some problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics.
If Evolution is actually a FACT, your ancestor is what we see today as bacteria.Stephen Jay Gould says that evolution is a scientific fact. Sherlock days it's not. Who to believe?
That one is easy.
No, modern bacteria are not a good example of a common ancestor. We are not descended from what we consider plants today.If Evolution is actually a FACT, your ancestor is what we see today as bacteria.
Well you might be living as the descendant of some plant.
Wait, a fish
Wait it is just a theory
Gee the question is for us all. Is that true?No, modern bacteria are not a good example of a common ancestor. We are not descended from what we consider plants today.
We are descendants of gilled aquatic vertebrates, as are all lung breathing terrestrial animals.
What are you talking about? did you mean to answer a different post?
Your Trumpian tactics won't work with me David, repeating endlessly that "scientific theories are not based on axioms" when every reputable definition of "theory" (including the National Center for Science Education) says the opposite makes you look rather foolish.
I refuse to waste time replying to someone who is unable to distinguish between true and false.
There is no scientific debate about the fundamentals of evolution. Life evolves; species descend with modifications from other species. However, fewer than 50% of American adults know that humans developed from earlier species. The fact of evolution is seen by some as a threat to personal worldviews. Added to this social controversy is a general lack of understanding about what evolution is and how it works. Together, these factors can make it challenging for teachers to present the science honestly, accurately, and completely. NCSE is committed to helping teachers gain the confidence and support they need to teach evolution effectively.
What are you talking about? did you mean to answer a different post?
Your Trumpian tactics won't work with me David, repeating endlessly that "scientific theories are not based on axioms" when every reputable definition of "theory" (including the National Center for Science Education) says the opposite makes you look rather foolish.
I refuse to waste time replying to someone who is unable to distinguish between true and false.
There is no scientific debate about the fundamentals of evolution. Life evolves; species descend with modifications from other species. However, fewer than 50% of American adults know that humans developed from earlier species. The fact of evolution is seen by some as a threat to personal worldviews. Added to this social controversy is a general lack of understanding about what evolution is and how it works. Together, these factors can make it challenging for teachers to present the science honestly, accurately, and completely. NCSE is committed to helping teachers gain the confidence and support they need to teach evolution effectively.
No, modern bacteria are not a good example of a common ancestor. We are not descended from what we consider plants today.
We are descendants of gilled aquatic vertebrates, as are all lung breathing terrestrial animals.
The answer is, yes, that is what all the evidence says, and nothing explains all the evidence better. You can tell because instead of putting forward a better competing theory, they just attack evolution.Gee the question is for us all. Is that true?
Scientists first question is always, is that true?
Because the bacteria that exist today have also been evolving along their own path the last 4 billion years.If the development of life on earth (about 4 billion years) is represented as a 24 hour clock then all we had for the first 21 hours was bacteria, then in the space of 2 minutes the entire range of phyla in the Cambrian appeared.
How can you say that bacteria are not a common ancestor?
Full text of his paper can be found here.
If Evolution is actually a FACT, your ancestor is what we see today as bacteria.
Well you might be living as the descendant of some plant.
Wait, a fish
Wait it is just a theory
Well you put a lot of faith in Jay Gould is all I can tell you.No, it’s not “just a theory”. According to evolutionary biologists like Stephen Jay Gould, it is a scientific fact because it is fully accepted as the manner in which life on this planet has come to its present form.
Well you put a lot of faith in Jay Gould is all I can tell you.
A very good scientific book on that issue is by Professor William Schopf from UCLA called the Cradle of Life. It is worth studying.Because the bacteria that exist today have also been evolving along their own path the last 4 billion years.
But you mean you studied each and every one of what you mention above in detail?It isn't because Gould said so. It is because the observations, facts, and testing have established it as true, independent of human opinion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?