(03-08-2009 10:32 PM)Wildebeest Wrote: (03-08-2009 09:19 PM)GGniner Wrote: -micro-evolution
-macro-evolution
2 very different things,
1)- That is a common misconception that creationists have been effective at spreading. Problem is that its wrong.
Quote:2)- one is proven, the other is at best, a theory.
3)- Absolutely. Read the definition of a scientific theory. Theories are supported by evidence. In this case, a vast amount of evidence.
Quote:Yet they get branded together as if they are the same thing.
Not really. One is an extension of the other. In order for one not to lead to another, there would have to be some sort of barrier which prevents it.
4)- No one has demonstrated that such a barrier exists, and the genetic evidence that supports the interrelatedness of species is overwhelming.
1)- OK, One is Proven and One is "At Best, a Theory" - -
"Absolutely. Read the definition of a scientific theory. Theories are supported by evidence. In this case, a vast amount of evidence".
Theories = Possibilities (not Proved Fact) ... Once it is actually a Proven Fact, it ceases to be a Theory and thus becomes Hard Fact. Why people continue to call Facts Theories, boggles the mind.
Quote: Main Entry:the·o·ry
Pronunciation:\ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function:noun
Inflected Form(s):plural the·o·ries
Etymology:Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date:1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
And 6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonyms see hypothesis
If you come at me with "The Theory of Evolution", I know you are talking Charles Darwin and it is mostly all Guess Work. ("The Missing Link ???")
If you come at me with "Evolution of Life", then I say "All life forms evolve to Adapt and Survive" (either Caused or Forced by changing Eco Systems or by Differing Subjected Lived Stimuli)
To those "Singularity of Thought People", this isn't Congress in Washington DC .... this is 'The Arena of Ideas', where people usually try to think for themselves and when the tail whips around and slaps you in the head, it is time to reevaluate what is being said.
Either a "Theory is a Theory (not yet Actually Tangibly Proven) or a Theory is "Actually Evidence borne out by being Tangibly Proven in Every Case where Theory is Prime" .... I mean ???? Can't have it both ways just because they do it that way in Washington DC.
2)- As far as I and several hundred million others are concerned, we believe that God created "Everything" and it "Is Proven For Us" .... and I won't play word games as to how I come by my Proven Facts, but they are there for those who so choose them as being the Guiding Principles of and for their lives.
We are just too Complex in all ways and manner to be happenstance creation - - too much thought went into our Design for it too be that 1-in-a-Trillion Cubed to the N'th Power Coincidence. There is just no way.
Like the age old question: "Do you love some one"??? Well Prove It Then - - simplicity at its best.
3)- I am Electronics Engineer and a Certified Computer Technician .... I can sit all day long and write Mathematical Calculations using Triangles and Calculus and tons of 10,000 year old Mathematical Equations that give me tons of Stated Theory as to how much Current is Flowing versus how much Wattage is being wasted or what the Ohm's & the Mho's are in a Circuit, but with all that Mathematical Theory, I STILL can not see the Electrons Moving within the Circuit Components - - if this is a True Statement, "Then do I really have Facts brought by Mathematical Theory, or is the actual Process of the Electrons Moving within the Circuit causation for the Mathematical Theory" ????
I mean I know Electricity is Real, but if all I have is paper with a bunch of equations on it, does that prove to you exactly what is happening in a Charged Circuit - - no matter what you do, you can not see the Electrons moving within that Circuit - - even though we can easily get to within 1% of the Electrical Value of what the Voltages and Current Levels should be by using Scientific Theory, we STILL CAN'T SEE THE ACTUAL ELECTRONS WORKING ALONG THE WIRES and COMPONENTS .... but have I proven that they are there, Right/Wrong ??? (or were they already there I just Calculated Them ???)
I just saw a very beautiful and striking photo - - it was of a Volcanic Blast that sent it's Cloud miles up into the Sky - - Electrical Lightning just encircled this plume and lite it up like a Nuclear Explosion - - the Caption Read something like this:
"Lightning bolts appear above and around the Chaiten volcano as seen from Chana, some 30 kms (19 miles) north of the volcano, as it began its first eruption in thousands of years, in southern Chile May 2, 2008.
Cases of electrical storms breaking out directly above erupting volcanoes are well documented, although scientists differ on what causes them.
Being into Electricity and Electronics, my "Simple Theory Is", the Volcanic Ash/Debris, is the same Polarity as the Earth. When it reaches into the 'Opposed Charged Atmosphere, it causes a Gigantic Discharge of Electricity, thus causing the Lightning Storms' .... ("My Theory" proven with Math and Science - - but not every one thinks the way I do on this, so how can a "Theory" be Proven then ??? A "Theory is simply just that, a Theory is an Assumptive Correlative Collection of Theorized and Known Facts relating to the Event Theorized" - - it is a mixture of Historical Data + Guess Work + Known Facts, using Scientific Methods, to Produce a Theorized Explanation)
If it were already Proven, it then would Not Be a Theory - - it would be a 'Fact' ....
4)- That is just too easy - - we are ALL Carbon Based Life forms so SURE, we are going to all have some semblances of likenesses with Cell Structure, DNA, General Make Up of Organs and how they Work.
That is so vague of a definition of Life by the Fringe Out-There's, that it is akin to saying "Water is Wet" .... just because I share some Chromosome Set or DNA Pattern with a Lower Life Form (like Robert), does absolutely NOT MEAN that Life Form and I are Related By Family Lines - - that is off the charts to believe something like that.
Good article on Upper and Lower Life Forms shared likenesses:
http://news.ncsu.edu/news/2008/02/027-Breen.php (but this does not make me part of the K9 Family)
And if you are reading this and are one of the Fringe Out-There's who don't care enough about your self to believe your self to be of the Highest Order of Life, then don't dump that Crap On Me - - I am not down on the Level of a Maggot - - if YOU Fringe Out-There's like equating your existence with those kinds of Horrible Comparisons, I feel sorry for you and it is no wonder that Life is viewed so Worthless at Both Ends of the Spectrum and so Easily Discarded. After all, your Family Descendants are Maggots .....
And once again, just to revisit this one:
OK, One is Proven and One is "At Best, a Theory" - - "Absolutely. Read the definition of a scientific theory. Theories are supported by evidence. In this case, a vast amount of evidence".
If the Fringe Out-There's really still want to stick to that last statement as their Standing Argument for Proved Science versus Theoretical Science, then what can you say ????
Even the "Best Evidence" sometimes loses in a Court of Law - - just look at O.J. Simpson and nothing else need be said.
.