Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374617
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374601
You need to brush up on what exactly a theory is as it pertains to science. This is one of the things that pisses me off the most, no offense to you. The situation and misconception pisses me off, not the people who make it. There are several meanings for theory, but in the realm of science only one is used and only one will suffice. I'll use oxford:
The definition you are using, the incorrect one, is:
A scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory are very different. Evolution has removed itself from the "realm of hypothesis" to a great extent. It is a confirmed hypothesis as the first definition suggests.
The other common misconception you hold is that there is something above or better than theory. This is not true. Even scientific laws are not above (so to speak) scientific theories. A law explains a phenomenon, but does not explain the reason for its occurrence. Think about Newton's laws. They outline how something will happen, but not why. We need the THEORY of gravitation to explain the why.
Did you know that heliocentricity is a theory? That is (for those who do not know) the theory that the earth revolves around the sun.
Look at the young kid getting uppitty because of the challenge.
Are you arguing planet dating (the age of the earth) or evolution (the sythesis of darwins ideas on natural selection combined with models thoughts on genetic mutations)? If it is planet dating this is based off the assumption (as it is unprovable) the source of the solar was ev enly distributed during creation......as we can see in life this is not the case then how can we be sure it is in this instance. On an evolutionary standpoints there are many facets of micro and macro evolution that are not yet proven..thus leaving gaps in the "theory".
Religious views are based on faith. End of story. Science can not compete with faith. As faith is an inner belief in something unproveable....
Darth (changing diapers and taking names ) Tang
What challenge? You do realize that I am not the spokesperson for evolution. I could completely fail to spew facts and get everything wrong and that would not damper the validity of evolution.
I am arguing both of those points. My first post:
More than 40% of Americans do not believe in evolution and furthermore believe that the earth's age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years.
Of course there are gaps in the theory, but comparatively few.
I flat out do not understand this statement: If it is planet dating this is based off the assumption (as it is unprovable) the source of the solar was ev enly distributed during creation......as we can see in life this is not the case then how can we be sure it is in this instance
Let's use potassium-argon dating. I can't remember the half life, but it is large. When molten rock solidifies, potassium 40 (a radioactive isotope) can be found. This is a way of zeroing in. We know that this unstable isotope wouldn't find its way into rocks otherwise and we know that it decays into argon 40 (which is stable). We can take the RATIO of argon to potassium to find an approximate date of the rock. The fun thing is that there are other rocks in this world and other isotopes which decay (about 150) so when all of these things correlate, coincidence can be ruled out.