Evolution is not a scientific theory

[annielaurie]

Well what that was about in that particular part of the fifth lecture (particle physicist Dr Brian Cox of Manchester, UK) was that there is a certain amount of guesswork in science.

OK. I'm glad I didn't bother watching it.

The hypotheses are open-ended so that scientists can keep learning more about them.

I think it is the opposite. The hypotheses need to make specific predictions so you can test them. Otherwise you are merely learning about your own imagination, not the universe.

You would not be sorry if you watched those lectures, FD. They are an introduction to the basics of physics, presented in layman's terms that are easy to understand.

Professor Cox has a doctorate in particle physics and you don't get much better that that, he is fully recognized by his peers and known all over the world, right along with Hawking and other cosmologists and physicists.

My response to your second comment is that both things are true - hypotheses are open-ended so we can learn more; and hypotheses need to make - and do make - specific predictions so we can test them, otherwise we are learning about our own imaginations and not the universe.

Both are true. I don't see a problem there, that is the way science works.

You still have not answered member questions about what you do believe in, if not in modern science. It seems you try to discredit accepted science, but don't offer a better alternative.

Is there anything you have to contribute to the subject instead of picking apart other people's posts, FD?

[freediver]

You would not be sorry if you watched those lectures, FD. They are an introduction to the basics of physics, presented in layman's terms that are easy to understand.

You are contradicting yourself Annie. Perhaps you should make a greater attempt to understand where others are coming from before telling them what they need to learn.

My response to your second comment is that both things are true - hypotheses are open-ended so we can learn more; and hypotheses need to make - and do make - specific predictions so we can test them, otherwise we are learning about our own imaginations and not the universe.

Perhaps you should explain what you mean by open ended.

You still have not answered member questions about what you do believe in, if not in modern science.

Just because scientific theories are always wrong does not mean I reject science. Obviously I am not going to be able to directly answer a question that tells me what I believe.

It seems you try to discredit accepted science, but don't offer a better alternative.

I am trying to defend defend science.

Is there anything you have to contribute to the subject instead of picking apart other people's posts, FD?

You want to go back to discussing scientology? Since then the topic has pretty much been my views about whether evolution is a scientific theory, thanks to IQ. You complain about me not responding to questions at the same time as complaining about me changing the topic.

[annielaurie]

FD, nobody has to look at the links I offered here if they don't want to.

I posted them for whoever might be interested. I wanted to share something I myself found educational and presented in an interesting way by someone who is tops in the field.

I don't think I was the one who changed the topic from scientology in this thread. Super Nova was posting. It is several pages back and I would have to go look at it again. I started posting in this thread because it got to be about science, and I love science.

You said you don't think evolution is "scientific" or that is isn't a scientific theory. If not scientific, then what exactly do you think it is? And what do you propose you are defending science from?

I'm just curious, that's all.

[freediver]

For the most part, it uses the same methods that historians do, and is subject to the same limitations.

And what do you propose you are defending science from?

From misrepresentation.

[annielaurie]

For the most part, it uses the same methods that historians do, and is subject to the same limitations.

And what do you propose you are defending science from?

From misrepresentation.

All right, these are good answers, direct and to the point.

[IQ popping]

Funny, I thought it sound like typical freeloader weasel word...and still no answer to a simple question while he declares that the theory of evolution is not scientific.

It is fun to watch him slither around though. Perhaps he has some snake DNA in him?

[Super Nova]

I still don't undertsand your statement either FD. Why do you think evolution is not scientific? (or was it a wind up)

[IQ pooping]

Maybe freeloader thinks his Tafe economics degree gives him better credentials than the National Academy of Sciences

The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.

Ergo: the theory of evolution is scientific fact

Maybe you should try promoting what you believe is an alternate theory rather than making yourself look stupid by proclaiming accepted science is not scientific?

Trying unsuccessfully to tear down accepted science for no other reason than pedantry make you look foolish and your evasiveness makes you look like you have a hidden agenda

[IQ popping]

I still don't undertsand your statement either FD. Why do you think evolution is not scientific? (or was it a wind up)

No, gumby actually believes it is not. He dribbles about it on his blog in an effort to discredit it and even wants it to be struck from the curriculum.

[IQ popping]

Yep- god botherer

It is only a very recent change that has seen science portrayed as an enemy of Christianity, apparently by people who sought to use this to discredit Christianity. While they may have had some success in giving Christianity a bad name (admittedly with the help of many Christians), they have also misrepresented science and created unnecessary conflict that was detrimental to the growth of human knowledge.