[_ Old Earth _] NEW anoucement evolutionists reject darwins thoery

[ThinkerMan]

If darwin is factual why are evolutionist scientists now saying that their are missing links in darwins theorys.

I don't think you'll find anybody here who accepts Darwin's complete theory as 100% gospel. To insinuate that is disingenious.

This is a strawman argument (and a bad one at that). This is tantamount to saying because Einstein refined Newton's theories, that Newton is a fool and none of his theories should be given merit.

Or perhaps closer to home, because the NT refined the OT, the OT makes foolish claims and should be discarded.

Strawman #1

this new theory they say they can prove as fact.

Nope, you won't find any of us saying "fact" either.

Strawman #2.

By the deffinission of light a theory only explaines why light works and not how their is no psyical evedence behind these,

I read that sentence seven times before, yep, I saw it makes not sense.

Actually, science has a very good theory about both the properties of light as well as the physics behind those properties.

such as the new string theory that is a theory to disprove einstines theory of relitivity.

Not so, string will not disprove the ToRelativity. In our current understanding, quantum mechanics simple does not agree with ToR at the subatomic level, and visa versa.

One will not disprove the other, however they have yet to harmonize the two.

Strawman #3.

or the new theory behind time and space this has just been spoken about by professer steven hawkin.

Please expand on this...what new theory are your referring to?

dosent mean to say its fact eather these are just theorys if it was a fact it would not be a theory.

Repeat of above...I agree. However, you insinuate that a "theory" is a bad thing, something to be mistrusted.

Christianity itself has numerous theories. Creationism is one of them, since the science behind it's claims is not "proven" as fact either. There are also numerous theories to explain apparent contradicts in the bible...not prove, just theories.

Strawman #4.

If i was to say that i will drop a feather and a ball then we can determinate graverty.

by the fact that the feather and ball will hit the ground at near enough the same time becouse we can psysically see that graverty works both ways it pushes the feather and ball up wards while at the same time their is greater graverty pushing the ball downwards.

this is a psysical fact.

If this experiement was conducted in a vacuum, they would hit the ground at EXACTLY the same time. If in the atmosphere, at nowhere near the same time. Your statement is in error.

Gravity pushing the objects upwards? While I concede, that the atmosphere, Mars, the moon, etc would impart neligible upwards pull on these objects, is that what you are talking about?

How does gravity work "both ways?".

as darwin is an unproven theory this is why now it is widely been rejected.

Darwin is a refined theory, and no theory is 100% provable. Repeat of strawman #1.

I'll call it Strawman #1.1.

 

[keebs]

Again, Tua, your calmness and honesty are helping your case better than some of your friends' tempers. Remember to treat all of us in the same manner. While the scientific definition suggests more credibility than that of webster, it still only suggests that a theory is not complete truth.

Nothing can be known to be an complete truth.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Nothing can be known to be an complete truth.

Let's look at this statement logically. This sentence is of the definitive nature, therefore it's being presented as a complete truth. Please pick whether is complete truth or not, my friend keebs.

 

[keebs]

I thought it would be understood from the context of the conversation that I was referring to the fact that I was referring to things in our life and universe that are not our own abstractions, such as mathematics.

 

[Asimov]

If darwin is factual why are evolutionist scientists now saying that their are missing links in darwins theorys.

Darwin didn't have all the information that we do now, including genetics. Darwins ideas had truth, but not the whole truth. For sake of simplicity, let's say Darwin, with his Theory, was 75% correct about Evolution. Nowadays, we are probably more like 90% correct. I'm not saying this as fact...I simply mean to illustrate that Darwin had a good idea about what he was about, and we just expanded on that idea.

I personally believe that a theory is a theory and a fact is a fact you see we need to be able to seperate a truth from a fable.

Then your entire world must be black and white. There are no grey areas??? That is simply not true. Life is not set up this way. Knowledge is not set up this way.

By the deffinission of light a theory only explaines why light works and not how their is no psyical evedence behind these.

Theories operate on physical evidence. They explain the evidence.

dosent mean to say its fact eather these are just theorys if it was a fact it would not be a theory.

No...they are not just theories. They are as close to fact as they will ever get, which is much closer than hypotheses, or guesses, or conjecture.

by the fact that the feather and ball will hit the ground at near enough the same time becouse we can psysically see that graverty works both ways it pushes the feather and ball up wards while at the same time their is greater graverty pushing the ball downwards.

No...Gravity is only attractive, it never repels. The only force that would make it seem like the object was being pushed up would be the objects own gravity, or on other objects in space. However, these forces are negligible as Thinkerman pointed out. They are negligible because of the distance of the objects, and because the force of gravity weakens the further away it is from an object.

as darwin is an unproven theory this is why now it is widely been rejected.

Darwin isn't a theory, he's a person.

What do you view as fact?? What are your ideas that explain the evidence that the Theory of Evolution explains so adequately?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Nothing can be known to be an complete truth.

Let's look at this statement logically. This sentence is of the definitive nature, therefore it's being presented as a complete truth. Please pick whether is complete truth or not, my friend keebs.

It's an a priori statement, thus it is based on an assumption, and a logical one, that supposes that we cannot know everything as that would require infinite knowledge.

 

[Blazin Bones]

I like the way you put that Vorlon. I can understand that point. keebs, I got what you were saying the first time, but I've always hated when people try to say that there Is no such thing as an Absolute truth. I apologize, because I know my statement could be seen as nit picking. You just hit on one of my pet pieves. 8-)

 

[Guest]

:wink: Brutus,he tend to do that. Tune it out.
I'm leaving this forum about evolution but maybe I'll
see you around,o.k?
Whatever you do,please don't ever compremise your faith.
blessings,blueeyeliner

 

[Asimov]

:wink: Brutus,he tend to do that. Tune it out.
I'm leaving this forum about evolution but maybe I'll
see you around,o.k?
Whatever you do,please don't ever compremise your faith.
blessings,blueeyeliner

yes, never compremise your faith.

compromising on the other hand...

 

[willow the wip]

Theories operate on physical evidence. They explain the evidence.

Then the theory of darwin has been disproven to say that this new theory of evolution disproves darwin then this is physical evidence also so their fore that expains the evidence of this new theory of evolution to say their is proven missing links in darwins theory.

 

[keebs]

Then the theory of darwin has been disproven to say that this new theory of evolution disproves darwin then this is physical evidence also so their fore that expains the evidence of this new theory of evolution to say their is proven missing links in darwins theory.

Blah blah blahblah blah? Darwin's theory has not been disproven, it just didn't explain everything. That is why we have refinied his theory. As I've seen posted before, this is just like Newton's laws of gravity. They were not disproven, they just didn't explain everything. You would be a fool to consider Newton wrong (especially because we can derive his 1/r^2 law using relativistic QFT, which is considered to be the most accurate scientific theory we have to date).

 

[Asimov]

Theories operate on physical evidence. They explain the evidence.

Then the theory of darwin has been disproven to say that this new theory of evolution disproves darwin then this is physical evidence also so their fore that expains the evidence of this new theory of evolution to say their is proven missing links in darwins theory.

What? no! There is no theory of darwin. Darwin formulated a theory of common descent, known as the Theory of Evolution. It has been added to, and slightly changed over the years, as we gain more knowledge. Not thrown out copmletely as disproven.

 

[willow the wip]

Darwin never invented the theory of evolution, this theory was their long before darwin.

so darwins theory remains inconclusive.

 

[Asimov]

Darwin never invented the theory of evolution, this theory was their long before darwin.

so darwins theory remains inconclusive.

Let me look back and see.....nope...I didn't say invented. I said he formulated the theory. He's the guy who put it out, and the one who received credit for his journey on the Beagle. It is understandable that there were ideas about common descent, just as different cosmology theories were developed independantly at roughly the same time.

Darwins theory is not inconclusive. His theory is correct, it just needed some tweaking.

 

[Barbarian]

People knew long before Darwin that living things had to have evolved. Augustine, the most influential of the Doctors of the Christian faith, realized this and discussed it.

Darwin's great discovery was why it happened.

 

[willow the wip]

exactly I was going to state that about Augustine.

Though i dont agree with evolution I was saying there are other theorys of evolution so the fact of evolution is not constant it changes over time.

 

[Barbarian]

No scientific theory is "constant". Theories are constantly revised as new evidence indicates. This is the difference between science and religion.

 

[Guest]

:-D The Bible stays constant,amen.

 

[Asimov]

:-D The Bible stays constant,amen.

Constantly wrong, for the most part.

 

[Guest]

:-D The Bible stays constant,amen.

Constantly wrong, for the most part.

8-) Wrong again! It is always constantly right,no matter what
the world claims in every generation.