Just because it gives me something to do - Macro relies on principles of Micro. It’s an artificial division. They’re the same thing, at the meat of the issue.

Just to indulge some thinking…you already said before that there probably never will be a time when what we know of any arbitrarily limited subject (really, it’s one multiverse, right?) is without flaw, and that completeness is among these “flaws”. Thus, we can never know anything, since I can make that limit arbitrarily fine. IF I were to take what you’re saying at it’s face.

It’s down to how you define and organize what you know as to whether or not it meets completeness. You’ve already said that’s probably not possible to really “get it all”. You’re right. But we can define boundaries such that, within those limits, our information is complete. Thus, we can fly planes without observing dark matter (at least that was the case ‘til very recently). The trick then, is to expand those boundaries, and their contents, only as new information accrues.

Brien, you said:

. . . evolution is an incomplete and unproven theory.

This isn’t quite true.

In scientific terms, a theory is an explanatory system for a set of related observations based on hypotheses that have been confirmed multiple times by independent scientists. The hypotheses generated from the theory (explanatory system) of evolution have been repeatedly tested through both observation and scientific manipulation (experiments). The results of these studies have been submitted to other scientists who take a great deal of pleasure in trashing one other’s work. If someone had any credible evidence that evolution could be dismissed as an explanatory system, they would subject their idea scientific scrutiny, run experiments, publish papers, and become quite, quite famous.

And here’s another reason we should all take science with a grain of salt.  Name ONE TIME in history where science had all the answers.  JUST ONE!  There’s isn’t one!  Throughout history science has been off.  How arrogant are you to believe you live in a time where we know everything.  Get a grip on reality.  You’re an idiot.

Brien, science is constantly subject to revision based on new findings and new information. That’s the beauty of the scientific method (which I find quite elegant.)
I didn’t say that science had all the answers. What I said was:

Evolution isn’t something we’re guessing at—it isn’t an opinion—for all intents and purposes, it IS proven until it is disproven. Is it complete and perfect? No (and neither is the theory of gravity). But you’d better to bet your sweet bacterial infection, antibiotic, tuberculosis and virulent plague that it’s real.

And I stand by my comments. The theory of evolution is complex and yes, it gets tweaked as scientists learn more and more. The fact that this happens does not change the fundamental truth of the theory, however. In science, anything that is considered a ‘theory’ has substantial empirical evidence to back it up and it is considered true – at least until someone comes up with a theory that better explains all the accumulated findings.

Shelley: - at least until someone comes up with a theory that better explains all the accumulated findings.

Goddidit!! ROTFLMAO

LJ- No Ididit (though thanks for your help with Norway- lovely crinkly edges)

Patness,

You’ve really done the best job at responding to my position.  I agree with what you said.  My standard for what I’m willing to call “fact” is much higher then that of most.

I agree with what you said about Macro implementing Micro, the truth is (and please give me a link here if i’m wrong) but it hasn’t been Observed (according to the strict Scientific Method).  I’m not saying it’s wrong.  It’s probably true, and I won’t be surprised if/when they finally prove it.

I impose a more strict burden of proof then most.  ...And I think eb should.  Let’s push science to refine itself.  Iron sharpens iron.  Controversy is a good thing.

I would add that it is far harder than you might think to come up with an alternate explanation that can account for all of the finding thus far.

Brien, I’m pleased to see that you hold science to a very high standard (as do all of us who are engaged in the process); but if i’m reading your post correctly, you’re now ready to agree that evolution has been proven and that your concerns actually boil down to the issue of macro versus micro?

I arrived on this website quite by accident and have had the unfortunate “luck” of reading these comments by “Brien”. What an incredibly impressive internet tough man! (and a stud muffin too!)

Is anyone going to actually debate him regarding evolution, or just let him continue to be either ignorant or intellectually dishonest on the matter?

(I’ll do it if the rest of you good people are either disinterested or ambivilent…)

Brien, you are rude, uneducated and offensive. If you actually knew half of what you seem to think you know about evolution, you’d know about twice what you seem to believe you know.

Shelley makes the point about the definition of scientific theory (which she is of course correct about), but…she’s going on too much about this arbitrary point because Brien is clearly too ignorant to actually acknowledge what he either knows (and is being purposely disengenous about) or is too stupid to understand. There are far more inaccuracy’s and circular ignorant flaws in the “facts” that he’s stating that you could go after (IMO) and he’s really getting off easy here. He clearly thinks of himself as some sort of an intellectual and well…in the land of fools, the biggest idiot is king. Brien’s limited brain and/or disengenousness is his kingdom.

Evolution is a fact. It’s not as if Darwin was the only scientist to ever develope evidence of it, it is a fact because there are thousands of pieces of evidence to support it. Brien, your ignorant comment about how we can’t observe evolution is right up there with the deluded stupid comments that the Christians that you are adamently apposed to often make. Of course evolution can’t be observed literally taking place. It’s not something that happens in one living generation, and if you had more than 10 active brain cells, you’d understand that. The reason we know it’s a fact is because there are tons of evidences of stages of evolution in our fossil records. Thousands. Everything from the development of wings for flight to vision and bipedalism can been clearly seen in stages over time. You should really educate yourself before you shoot your idiot mouth off with such confidence. (no offense… in the same way I’m sure you meant no offense towards Shelley…you jagoff).

We know evolution is a fact because we can see blatant (near identical) DNA in the same species we have evidence of evolution through the fossil records. Again…ed-u-ca-tion. I promise it won’t hurt.

p.s. - You may strongly state your dissdain for Christian’s and dissassociate yourself with their foolish world views and philosophies, but…you have a lot more in common with them than you seem to realize.

I’m not even sure if I should get in to the laws of gravity (not the “theory”), because this has already caused me a headache I didn’t deserve.

You really aren’t this stupid, are you? I mean, what’s next? Flat earth? Universe revolving around the earth? Exclusiveness of 4 elements? Do you want to educate us all on the myth of velocity or the periodic table? How about the myth of the Big Bang?

Ughhh…

Anyway, to the rest of you people, I’ve only briefly browsed the website, and I have to get off to bed because I work in 4 hours and I’m tired (although I’m sure not nearly as tired as Brien is from pumping gas all day long…) I like what I see on here and appreciate the site SEB, and I’ll be sure to check back in later.

Regards,

GodlessRaven

“I impose a more strict burden of proof then most”

*laugh!*

Okay, my headache is gone. Thanks for the laugh.

Godless Raven—You’re right of course, gravity is a law rather than a theory—I tend to use it in this inaccurate manner in these debates because it is something simple with which most people are familiar, and if I called it a ‘law’ they’d say something brilliant in the lines of “it’s a called a LAW you idiot. Therefore it isn’t an unproven theory like evolution.“ And we both know that evolution is hardly unproven.

I didn’t bother taking on any of Briens other comments because so often the approach to the discussion from fundies (and their ilk) is something in the line of scattershot: They fire off a bunch of random arguments, following which I (or others here) write a long post and patiently counter each argument. The fundie then ignores the post entirely (why muddle things with facts?) and then posts another ramble of scattered inarticualte arguments.

It seemed to me that there might be more progress made if I could hammer through one simple point at a time (the first inevitable argument being that evolution was an unproven theory). Clearly I was mistaken.

You’ve made excellent and articulate points, Godless Raven. And if s/he’ll come back out to play, I’d be very happy to sit back and watch you wipe the screen with Brien’s . . .

Well, that would be just rude, wouldn’t it? 

While there is a Law of Gravity, there is also a Theory of Gravity. The line between Laws and Theories is thin, but distinct. Here’s an appropriate quotation from Wikipedia:

Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens, in terms of the more fundamental laws.

Not even Laws are safe from being discarded, however, should new observations contradict them.

Shelley - Hi!

Thank you for the response. You really put a smile on my face when you described the…lets say “challenges” of debating fundies (or in this case…loonies). It may as well have come right out of my mouth, because I’ve had exactly the same experiences. *laugh*

I realized after I read your comments that it appeared as though I was lecturing you/other regulars on this terrific website for not debating Brien in a certain way, and…that’s my fault. You made very valid points as to why you do it step by step and I agree with you on that point for the reasons you gave. I guess I’m a lot more heartless when it comes to ignorant people that like to insult Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc. I have no mercy for them.

I felt the need to step in because I really didn’t care for the way he was insulting you (nor the way he seemed to think he was being witty about it!) The biggest insult was probably his over estimating his attractiveness to the opposite sex…or same species for that matter.

Thanks again for your response. As I stated, I agree with it, and your logic. Perhaps in the future we can team up and you can smack them with their inability to handle simple concepts while I berate them for their bravery in the face of a total lack of education.

Oh Brien…where art thou?

Anyway, peace and regards from Canada. Nice meeting you!

GR

Les - Greetings.

You are of course correct in stating that even a “law” can be proven incorrect and therefor changed or dismissed. I kind of find your comments redundant and really of no use to this debate however. Let me explain:

1. Evolution is a fact for many reasons. Some of which I touched on, however if you’d like to debate whether or not it’s a fact or just a whimsical “theory”, I’m game. Gravity is a fact in the exact same way. Again…I’d rather debate evidence when we’re discussing things like this instead of semantics, but none the less, I’m willing to debate either. By your explanation nothing can ever be proven as a definate law because some new evidence could be found to change the entire idea of it. Okay, but now we are bordering on philosophical debates and I’d rather skateboard in a vat of lard than spend a lot of time confusing science with philosophy. If we put too much credence in to your arguement than nothing is “real”, because even our existence could one day be proven to not be what we think it is. “Life” and awareness could be something else. Rrrriiigggghhhhttt! Maybe gravity is not a law!? We all know that gravity is a fact because of tons of evidence and experiments that confirm it. Just because technically anything can be disproven (and to say such as an arguement for dismissing facts is just as nonsensical as religion to me) doesn’t change facts. When something has tons of evidence and there is no other competitive theory (not even a remotely competitive theory) despite millions of attempts, it is a fact.

2. Can a theory be a fact? Yes. Can a law be a fact? Yes. They can also not be a fact, and that seems to be your arguement, however…again…it’s nonsensical to say no theory is a fact simply because some are not. Sometimes I find this arguement borderine paranoia/distrust more than anything worthwhile debating.

So do we agree that a theory CAN be a fact? Or are you just under the impression that there can never be such a thing as a fact?

If the first is true, lets debate the evidence to my claim that gravity and evolution are facts. If the latter is true…I think we’re done.

Let me know.

Regards,

GR

LJ- No Ididit (though thanks for your help with Norway- lovely crinkly edges)

That took me an embarrassing amount of time to get, Hussar, and that made it even funnier.
Shelly and Raven, and Brien if you’re still around:  yes, we’ve been here before, lots.  If you haven’t yet thrilled at our rapier wits and razor intellects, check out the archives, for instance here and here.

I’m currently trying to reap souls for Satan, I mean Darwin, among the Bible Code guys, but I’m not making much headway, I’m afraid.  One of them has penetrated my disguise and accused me of being sent by the Wicked One to cause the True Believers to stumble.  They have nothing to worry about from me, however- if they have managed to jump over the hurdles of twelve-and-counting false predictions of the nuking of New York, they’ll take little ol’ me, and Darwin, in stride…

GR, you seem to be under the false impression that I don’t buy into the idea that Evolution (or gravity) is a fact. You’re new here and probably haven’t spent much time in the archives, but if you check them you’ll see that we’re on the same side in this debate. I’ve just had it so many times now that I have little patience with the folks who show up and try to claim Evolution is “just a theory.“

I cringe every time someone starts getting into “law” versus “theory” as most folks get it wrong in thinking that a theory becomes a law once it’s been “proven” and that’s simply not the case.

Hey Les,

Yeah, apparently I misunderstood something there. Probably because I sort of happened on this thread by doing an internet websearch and kind of inpolitely jumped in on the conversation without doing more research on it’s contents.

For example…I’m at work right now, and I just did a google search to find this website again and it loaded up the front page (where as last night I somehow got the page “Brien” was posting on and started reading from that point on).

It just dawned on me that you’re the guy who runs this website, and from the little bit of reading I’ve just done, we probably do agree on a lot of things *laugh*

Still…I’m new here and you could have at least done me the curtosey of playing off of my ignorance and pretended to be a crazy fundamental Christian who believes the earth was created 6,000 years ago. Sheesh!

What kind of a place is this anyway!? *laugh*

As far as the misunderstanding…in my defense…I’m taking some pretty strong hypnotics right now because of an injury I incured to my neck. I was on percocet, baclofen and imovane/zopiclone. If any of you are familiar with the last one, you’ll understand. I’m surprised I wasn’t getting visions of JC speaking to me out of my reading lamp.

Note to self: Add a half a glass of red wine tonight and a shot of Nyquil just to “shake things up” a little bit.

I gotta get back to work.

Pleasure meeting you all.

Peace,

Bryce (aka GodlessRaven)

Whilst reading your first post I pictured a fencing-master showing his inept student how many ways there are to draw blood, once you know how.
I wonder if Brianne will come back. 

to be honest, i kinda missed you guys.  i was tending to the many women of my harem.  practicing a little cell multiplication by division, if you know what i mean   (btw Shelley, there’s still a spot for you here)

to everyone still talking about this subject, shouldn’t we move on? 

i’m ok with disagreeing.  IMHO, it’s arrogant and silly to think that science has finally “figured it all out” since throughout all of history science has lied to us!  science has always been too eager to call something a fact before it’s really understood.

also, just to be clear, i think cell mutation and natural selection have been proven using the scientific method.  i think macro evolution is a nice idea, but totally impossible.  if anyone has links to proof of macro, please let me know.  i’d rather be thought of as stupid then stubborn.  i just haven’t seen anything convincing.

this whole thing started about some theater not showing a film.  i thought it was silly not to show the film.  i think we can all agree on that.

i think macro evolution is a nice idea, but totally impossible.  if anyone has links to proof of macro, please let me know.

You just hurt yourself, there, Brien. We’re in a discussion of data validity, right? Macro-ev is evidenced to be true - but proven neither true nor false. Your feelings on the matter are not, of themselves, relevant to data. However, if you are willing to the notion that macro-ev is impossible without evidence to the same, you have placed yourself beneath the demands you hold to science. There can be no scientific debate in such a condition.

The irony in this is that, all along, this was the consensus of the trained community - there is no scientific debate on the matter.

It may not be possible to “prove” that macro-ev is taking place. It may not be possible to dis"prove” the contrary. But one of these things must be possible if macro-ev is an observable fact. Given the youth of the theory, the huge amount of supporting data, the lack of contrary evidence, and the support of micro-ev, I am confident that such proof as you seek will also emerge.

Patness,

i’m not talking about data validity, nor am i trying to prove or disprove anything.  how did you get that idea?  my argument is based on an opinion…that’s why it’s really silly for all you people to fight with me over it.

i said that i might be wrong about Macro, i asked to be given links that might convince me otherwise.  and i said that i won’t be surprised if they find proof of Macro, eventually.

all i’m saying is that things should only be called a Scientific Theory or Fact if they follow the rules outlined in the scientific method.  Macro fails to follow the rules.

we should reserve the word FACT for facts.  i think the scientific method is being trampled by money and egos in science.  ...but science has always been somewhat corrupt (historically speaking).

on the debate in the scientific community, i’ll have to point you back to the FACT that throughout history that group has ALWAYS been wrong about MOST things.  can you say that i’m wrong?

Brien: IMHO, it’s arrogant and silly to think that science has finally “figured it all out” since throughout all of history science has lied to us!

Brien, I don’t know where you’ve gotten the idea that it is in the realm of science to “figure it all out.“ Plus, “science” cannot possibly lie to anyone; it is a broad field of study, not a sentient being capable of either lying or honesty.

i’m not talking about data validity

But you are. You think that the conclusion that argument for macro is invalid - that it is possible for macro-ev to be incorrect despite that data we have indicates it is correct. However, you cannot further the debate by stating equally invalid arguments.

FACT that throughout history that group has ALWAYS been wrong about MOST things

The statement is contradictory - it can’t be always wrong and not always wrong. The use of “most” does two things, here. First, it gives credit to the idea that there are some things which science is not wrong about, and second, it tries to quantify the knowable universe. Since we can arbitrarily define the boundaries in which something is complete, we can define those boundaries to exclude those areas where we are incorrect or unknown and show that we are correct in a limited but expanding universe of discourse. So, we are only sometimes wrong, and yes, I can say you’re wrong in this statement, with good reason behind doing so.

Really, still hinge on “proof”. OOC, in directly observing macro, are we not directly observing those component processes which cause it to occur (micro)? In which case, are we asking that we see an end result that we have observed to have been caused by micro? Is it feasible to show that a micro mechanism is essential to isolate a sub-species to it’s own reproductive chain? Does it suffice to know this in a single species?

Because there are lots of creatures that can’t reproduce with oneanother, some of whom are only slightly different in terms of genetics. If we show that micro is the only method by which such differences can accrue, have we not given sufficient proof that macro is the only scientific explanation?

Ignoring the silliness about harems and such, Brien writes…

i’m ok with disagreeing.  IMHO, it’s arrogant and silly to think that science has finally “figured it all out” since throughout all of history science has lied to us!  science has always been too eager to call something a fact before it’s really understood.

I don’t know of anyone, particularly not any scientists, who claims that science has “figured it all out” as you put it. If that were the case then there’d be very little reason for scientists to continue their research.

As for science “lying” to us, that implies an intentional act of deception as opposed to an honest mistake. Are you seriously suggesting that scientists have done nothing but try to deceive everyone throughout history? Please cite examples of science being too hasty to call something a fact. I’d love to see what you’re basing this claim on.

The fact that science has been wrong in the past does not diminish the accomplishments it has brought us over the ages. Science doesn’t lay claim to being the final infallible authority on The Truth, only religion makes that claim.

also, just to be clear, i think cell mutation and natural selection have been proven using the scientific method.  i think macro evolution is a nice idea, but totally impossible.

Again I’d love to see your basis for the claim that macro evolution is impossible. Please enlighten us.

if anyone has links to proof of macro, please let me know.  i’d rather be thought of as stupid then stubborn.  i just haven’t seen anything convincing.

We’ve covered this before in the archives, but here’s the link you’re requesting: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. It discusses the predictions, evidences for, and possible falsifications.

this whole thing started about some theater not showing a film.  i thought it was silly not to show the film.  i think we can all agree on that.

Indeed, but then one wonders why you had to drag up the rest of the debate.

i’m not talking about data validity, nor am i trying to prove or disprove anything.  how did you get that idea?  my argument is based on an opinion…that’s why it’s really silly for all you people to fight with me over it.

Your argument is based on an

uninformed

opinion. You show up and start making claims about how evolution is an incomplete and unproven theory as though you’re revealing some glaring error on the part of science when all you’re really doing is demonstrating your lack of foundation in it and then you try to act as though you’re surprised that people are arguing with you about it.

OK, I accept that you hold “facts” to a higher standard than most scientists do and you disagree with the idea of macro evolution. The question now becomes why you think I should give a shit that you hold those opinions? You’ve not specified what your profession is, but I’m willing to guess it’s not an Evolutionary Biologist and as such there’s not much reason for me to hold your opinion in high regard in comparison.

i said that i might be wrong about Macro, i asked to be given links that might convince me otherwise.  and i said that i won’t be surprised if they find proof of Macro, eventually.

all i’m saying is that things should only be called a Scientific Theory or Fact if they follow the rules outlined in the scientific method.  Macro fails to follow the rules.

No, macro doesn’t fail to follow the rules of the scientific theory and that shouldn’t be the basis for determining if something should be a fact. The amount of evidence supporting it should be the determining factor and there is a ton of evidence out there in support of macro evolution. Pick up just about any book by Stephen Gould or Richard Dawkins for starters.

we should reserve the word FACT for facts.  i think the scientific method is being trampled by money and egos in science.  ...but science has always been somewhat corrupt (historically speaking).

Again I’d love to know what your basis for that claim happens to be.

on the debate in the scientific community, i’ll have to point you back to the FACT that throughout history that group has ALWAYS been wrong about MOST things.  can you say that i’m wrong?

That’s a ridiculously broad statement to make considering that what is known as the Scientific Method today, which you seem to hold in high regard, has only been around since the 17th or 18th century. Much of the advancement in technology, medicine, and basic quality of life in the past 200 years alone would’ve been impossible if science was as badly flawed as you imply.

Brianne: but science has always been somewhat corrupt (historically speaking).

Unlike mankind in general or religion specifically.

When I received the email notification that Brien had returned to the scene of the crime (that crime being indecent exposure…of his low brow thinking process) I took a quick read of what he had said and started to formulate the best response to combat his persistent ignorance. The first thing that came to mind was his inability to separate what he knows, with what is known. His arrogance from reality. But then I open up the website and notice that Patness has addressed this in a very poignant/eloquent way.

My other plan to educate Brien was to explain to him why both micro and macro evolution are facts (again, despite his ability to comprehend the later). I scroll down and Les has completely obliterated every ion of Brien’s incredibly weak argument, and…again, in a very deliberate, educated manner.

My thoughts now are:

a) Brien may in fact be Ken Hovind in disguise, since his denial of macro-evolution and apparently gravity and potentially subatomic particle theory etc., seems to be straight from the Hovind camp of nonsensical sense. The only thing missing is the random salad tossing of scripture.

b) I may have to respond faster if I want to get my licks in on here, because clearly the regulars are educated and up to date on current research.

c) Brien is most definitely Hovind.

d) Scientific Evidence that Brien Scored Many, Many Babes this Past Weekend. Eyewitness testimony - Click Here.

e) I hope you guys don’t mind if I hang around a while in here. I’ve gone on other websites where they claimed to be pro-atheism and it ended up that the moderators were actually Christians pretending to be unbiased. Once the heat got turned up, I was insulted and my posts started getting moved to a thread titled “Hell”. I get the feeling that won’t happen around here.

f) I’m going to go read up on the archives so I have a better idea of who everybody is before I start posting some of my philosophies etc. Talk with you all then.

g) He’s definitely Hovind.

Brien- Les and the others here have pretty much said it all.  I’d just like to add a couple of things:

Your disbelief in macroevolution is based, as far as I can see, upon the “Argument from Personal Incredulity”, which is not a particularly convincing argument.  I can’t resist quoting Richard Dawkins here, from The Blind Watchmaker (now twenty years old, but still pertinent).  Dawkins first quotes from a creationist book:

As for camouflage, this is not always easily explicable on neo-Darwinian premises.  If polar bears are dominant in the Arctic, then there would seem to have been no need for them to evolve a white-coloured form of camouflage.

Dawkins then translates it for us:

I personally, off the top of my head sitting in my study, never having visited the Arctic, never having seen a polar bear in the wild, and having been educated in classical literature and theology, have not so far managed to think of a reason why polar bears might benefit from being white.

Do us all a favor and check out Les’s link about the evidence for macroevolution, and then tell us how you find it to be “not following the rules of the scientific method.“  If you’re still holding out, as Creationists often seem to be, for a fossil lineage connecting every organism that ever lived to every other, then your standards for “proof” are indeed higher than those of scientists.  Only gods can aspire to that kind of knowledge.  This is often a sticking point in debates between Darwinians and Creationists: the insistence on the part of the Creationists that if there are things not yet understood, or incomplete, then a theory is simply not proven.  That’s one reason I mistakenly pegged you for a Creationist at first.

Sometimes I find it unfortunate that we have the same word, “proof”, for, say, mathematical proofs and scientific proofs.  Mathematical proofs are absolute, within a simple (in comparison to the Universe!) bounded system:  they are true or false by definition of the procedures.  Scientific proofs, as others have already pointed out, are never complete.  Even in physics there’s some point at which we lose the last decimal point, and the situation in biology is much more complex, because living things are so much more complex that nonliving, and because so much of biology is historical, with more or less gaping holes in our knowledge.  Even so, the evidence for evolution at all scales is overwhelming.  The evidence for the truth of the Bible is, well, underwhelming.

Brien, check it out, and I suspect you won’t be tempted to make glib comparisons of Darwinists with Creationists anymore.