Reverend:

@supaguy
That is because even the most staunch Christian realizes that the story of the creation is absolute nonsense and a fairy tale

It's never ceases to amaze me how cocky and confident people can be in dismissing religious claims as nonsense without an inch of evidence! Notice i'm not insisting that the biblical versionof creation HAs to be the true one but it is obvious to any INFORMED person that there is more evidence supporting a sudden appearance of complex organisms of earth (which supports creation) than a gradual increase in complexity as claimed by evolutionists. Note that nferyn and kag have still not taken  up my challenge on giving me specific examples of speciation based on THEIR own knowledge, not some crap they pulled out of some crank evolution obsessed website. I have decided to stop posting serious threads until one of them has the courage to take up my challenge as I have noticed they seem to present speciation as the basic evidence supporitng evolution. It is easy to claim speciation, i myself can give millions of examples but i can also show anyone who's willing to learn that every single claim of speciation  is nothing but  variation, elaborate, sometimes dramatic, but still simple old boring variation

simmy:

It's never ceases to amaze me how cocky and confident people can be in dismissing religious claims as nonsense without an inch of evidence!

Where's the evidence of these religious claims? Maybe they should produce evidence [b]prior [/b]to making these claims. As these claims are quite extraordinary, extraordinary evidence is required. Some scribblings in an ancient book does not suffice.

simmy:

Notice i'm not insisting that the biblical versionof creation HAs to be the true one but it is obvious to any INFORMED person that there is more evidence supporting a sudden appearance of complex organisms of earth (which supports creation) than a gradual increase in complexity as claimed by evolutionists.

Where's the evidence? Empty assertion.
Maybe you can present a falsifiable scientific theory of creation. That would be a good start.

simmy:

Note that nferyn and kag have still not taken up my challenge on giving me specific examples of speciation based on THEIR own knowledge, not some crap they pulled out of some crank evolution obsessed website.

You mean that we cannot use credible scientific sources, but need to pull information out of the place where the sun doesn't shine? I suppose if we did that, you'd probably loudly proclaim that we pull things out of our asses. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

simmy:

I have decided to stop posting serious threads until one of them has the courage to take up my challenge as I have noticed they seem to present speciation as the basic evidence supporitng evolution.

Interesting. We did take up your challenge, but you dismissed the information, as it was some crap they pulled out of some crank evolution obsessed website. You continuously shift the goalposts.

simmy:

It is easy to claim speciation, i myself can give millions of examples but i can also show anyone who's willing to learn that every single claim of speciation is nothing but variation, elaborate, sometimes dramatic, but still simple old boring variation

It's indeed a matter of degree. Speciation is a consequence of genomic variation that leads to reproductive isolation (among others through the mechanism of natural selection) and even that is a matter of degree, as lions and tigers can produce offspring. According to your [i]variation [/i]logic, these are not different species?

i think this sign of the end of the world is all over the places

even here!!!!

in this forum

xkape :

@ KAG
Sorry for the long silence, but let us now look at your link explaining the evolution of the bacterial flagellum

Not a problem, and the link was presenting a plausible explanation for the evolution of the flagellum. Note also, that it would have helped if you had followed my advice and read the sources given in the link, as, like the top of the TO link stated, the link was “a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function”.

Admittedly, I’m not expert on the flagellum, so hopefully a linky would do.

Stage 1

How? Why? Gating proteins a very stereo-specific did an excreted protein just luckily get stuck in the pore and form a filter? and there after codons began coding for this protein and were transported to this exact same spot in subsequent generations? this fortuitous happening only giving rise to one location for the binding of the protein? since we know that the flagellum is located at the dorsal portion of the organism because this is where the motor function is best served. The process in this explanation would have giving rise to flagella all over the organism hence negating the motor function since it originaly developed as an excretory organ. This explanation would have been suited for cilia and not flagella but this same article states that these organels were developed independent of one another?


stage 2

Speculative, unfounded. Another example of the obsfucation inherent in the ToE. On the surface all these look plausible but it begs the question of the kind of selective pressure that would induce a protein being added to an excretory system. All we have is speculation and a series of increasingly improbable coincidental events
Is it easier to believe this was a random sequence or a cognate finetuning and development of a complex machine over the eons?

See link above, and please read as many of the sources cited.

stage 3

Polymerization? Again, mechanism? purpose? These would be possible in a genetic framework that already coded for such reactions at this exact location (has to be because again, of stero-specificity). But the situation here is of an a-priori organelle, a novel binding site, and a excretory protein that is tailor made to serve the function so conveniently prepared for it

Hope this can answer your questions: http://nsm.uh.edu/~dgraur/ArticlesPDFs/gophnaetal2003.pdf

Also, please read the sources given in the TO link, if you want to know more.

stage 4
And this is the lynch pin of the whole theory. Note the word FORTUITOUSLY meaning - since I don't have a reasonable explanation for how this simplified anus becomes an electric motor, let me just blame it on blind luck.
This is where a strawman attempts to beat up another strawman

Actually it would seem you are the one who has constructed a strawman. You latching on fortuitous and attempting to use it as an argument, is the strawman In a sense, mutations could be considered fortuitous, what happens afterwards in the population cancels out the chance part. So a beneficial mutation fortuitously occurred, and it was selected.

Except, you meant your strawman was your attempt to beat a strawman (which in actuality wasn’t a strawman, as it was presenting a plausible explanation, and not really attacking a position).

stage5
Quote
The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.
More of the same crap. Literally

More ridiculous hand waving, literally…

At this point i got tired of the whole article. Anybody interested can check the link out himself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

Thanks for posting the link again, my advise would be to read the sources cited, and other peer reviewed papers on the subject.

Another astute observation made by the author is this
Quote
Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

This is an insult on the inteligence of the reader. It is like saying that since there are various designs for Nike running shoes that perform the same function, they must have evolved from loose raw materials in the Nike factory

It really is an astute observation, and unfortunately you haven’t realised how true an observation it was. First on your analogy, it is well known that the various designs for and manufacturing of Nike running shoes have been done by many (and I mean many) designers and creators, so that begins to explain why we have different designs of Nike running shoes for the same function.

Also, the design and manufacture of Nike shoes, which are obviously not capable of imperfectly replicating themselves, have been observed over and over again. However, the Intelligent Designer (we are assured that there’s just one) hasn’t. been seen or observed, nor has any consistent way of identifying what was specially created by the said ID, been given.

Finally, you still haven’t addressed the important issue of why an Intelligent designer (wink, wink) would find it necessary to keep inventing new designs for different organisms, when one type of design evidently works just fine. Evolution has given a good and empirically testable explanation for why that phenomena, but not so ID. Reasons seem to range from the ridiculous, the Intelligent Designer (nudge, nudge) can do whatever he wants, to the incorrigible “the Intelligent Designer (you know who we are really referring to, so no need for this charade!) works in mysterious ways.

In fact i propose an adendum to the theory of evolution. The theory of Archeological Evolution which posits that archeological structures such as the Pyramids of Giza could not have been made by humans but must have evolved through the action of agents like wind rain earthquakes meteors and such like.

I don’t get it.

xkape:

Interesting deduction, since you're the one who brought up religions and demigods here
I see u are all conveniently quite on my rebutall of some of your illustrious evolutionary writers i did somewhere back there

Weird, considering just how many you've refused to acknowledge. Also, if you are referring to your response on the TO link, then that woulod be, your response to a short summary on how the flagellum may have evolved, written by one illustrious (how is that measured?) writer.

woleprof:

hope u hv read your bible very well.

be careful the way u respond to sensitive cases like this

Indeed!

supaguy:

Wow!!! I am surprised at the very few number of Christians who came up to support the creation story.

You and I both mate, you and I both. It's almost like several people on here are under the misapprehension, that trying to discredit evolution, would by default make creation right.

One thing for sure, if you're using physical means to find your origin and how u were created, its a futile effort and a complete waste of time. There are facts to prove that there is a God!!! Tell me, how do miracles happen? There are people who have died and have returned to life, they share experiences of their encounter with God, what proof does science have to give concerning this?

Could you present the facts for the existence of God, and more than anecdotes for miracles? Also, science doesn't have "proof" for anything on NDEs, but it does have explanations based on research and evidence, for why they occur in some people, and why many don't experience them. Do you have any explanation for why many don't have NDEs?

The Bible is another evidence. If u feel its just a book, you're deceiving yourself. False prophets were spoken of in the Bible, and the fufilment is being witnessed by the world today. Is it still just a book? I hope u will not live to regret your decision after the rapture. Ppl like we Christians would have gone by His grace,, and it would be left for you who refused to believe to feeel remorse on nairaland. U still have a chance!

How is the bible evidence for God? Also, bear in mind that "false" prophets existed before the alledged prophecy, so it wouldn't have been difficult to prophesy that "false" prophets would come afterwards.

woleprof:

i think this sign of the end of the world is all over the places

even here!!!!

in this forum

I doubt that.

@Simmy, now you are just being ridiculous.

Don't be so sure that the bible does not teach evolution.

Remember Charles Darwin was a trained theologian. When you read the bible carefully, you can almost see where he stole his ideas from.

wow.

White Missionaries come across oceans, teach native people about a holy book and a holy religion and that thei rown native religion and theology is wrong and centuries later the native people are spitting back the brain washed material like it is truth.

There are unexplained forces in this world. Some of the smartest people on Earth including Einstein acknowledge this. HOWEVER it is NOT explained by the bible. The bible certainly has nuggets of useful information about and certain moral truths that are applicable in a secular society. But when it comes to explaining spirituality and divine forces it is a joke. Its first section is based on Judaism and outdated Jewish law (a HUGE section in the Old testament) and creation story based on earlier Pagan and nativist religions including aspects from Greek mythology and its second section is on a self proclaimed prophet and his disciples discrepant recollections of the said prophet with writings infused by Roman authoritarians at the time. Lest we forget, the Old testament was used to justify Eureopean slavery, as the Jews had slaves and they had laws governing the treatment and fair use of those slaves. Next time time the next round of imperialists come crashing through your borders do not be suprised if they use the great Bible to justify their oppression.

For anyone to hold up the bible or the quran and proclaim it is the be all and end all of life is an idiot.

For anyone to hold the belief that evolution is th end all and be all of the origins of organisms is equally an idiot.

Evolution is a THEORY. Its not a Scientific fact or law. its a theory. A very good one that seems to explain alot of events that occur in organisms such as why genetic mutations occur for example. But ofcourse it doesnt address several things such as the driving force behind such said mutations. It is a known fact that a single human cell kept alive for years does not spontaneously mutate (and as such what caused and drove the evolution of unicellular organisms to multicellular is not known). But Science evolves as well.

Anyone who doesnt believe that there is an unknown driving force behind this almostly infinetely complex world is an idiot. But you are a bigger idiot if you think the bible even addresses it sufficiently or is the end all and be all of explaining this unknown mysterious force. I hold Christianity on the same plane and level as Greek mythology, Judiasm and the plethora of native religions that where killed off  by Christian Missionaries and those that still exist today.

shango:

There are unexplained forces in this world. Some of the smartest people on Earth including Einstein acknowledge this. HOWEVER it is NOT explained by the bible. The bible certainly has nuggets of useful information about and certain moral truths that are applicable in a secular society. But when it comes to explaining spirituality and divine forces it is a joke. Its first section is based on Judaism and outdated Jewish law (a HUGE section in the Old testament) and creation story based on earlier Pagan and nativist religions including aspects from Greek mythology

Which parts of the creation story are based on Greek mythology?

For anyone to hold the belief that evolution is th end all and be all of the origins of organisms is equally an idiot.

Idiot? No. Ignorant? Perhaps; but that's probably because evolution doesn't deal with the origin of organisms per se, but deals with the origin of species.

Evolution is a THEORY. Its not a Scientific fact or law. its a theory.

Sadly, your knowledge of scientific concepts seems to be lacking. A scientific theory is often regarded higher than Laws in science, I think Nferyn has posted a link explaining what scientific theory and law mean. By the way, evolution is a fact, while the theory of evolution seeks to explain it.

A very good one that seems to explain alot of events that occur in organisms such as why genetic mutations occur for example. But ofcourse it doesnt address several things such as the driving force behind such said mutations. It is a known fact that a single human cell kept alive for years does not spontaneously mutate (and as such what caused and drove the evolution of unicellular organisms to multicellular is not known). But Science evolves as well.

Erm, it's known why genetic mutations happen, imperfect replication is a start.

Anyone who doesnt believe that there is an unknown driving force behind this almostly infinetely complex world is an idiot.

That's wonderful, but an argument from incredulity (I think it's incredulity) coupled with ad hominems do not a sensible discussion make. When you have something besides those, start a new thread, and when I get back, I'll participate.

But you are a bigger idiot if you think the bible even addresses it sufficiently or is the end all and be all of explaining this unknown mysterious force. I hold Christianity on the same plane and level as Greek mythology, Judiasm and the plethora of native religions that where killed off by Christian Missionaries and those that still exist today.

Again with the ad homs, *tut*.

White Missionaries come across oceans, teach native people about a holy book and a holy religion and that thei rown native religion and theology is wrong and centuries later the native people are spitting back the brain washed material like it is truth.

Quite by accident. Missionaries surely regretted planting the seed (the bible) that would lead to the people being free from them.

There are unexplained forces in this world. Some of the smartest people on Earth including Einstein acknowledge this. HOWEVER it is NOT explained by the bible. The bible certainly has nuggets of useful information about and certain moral truths that are applicable in a secular society. But when it comes to explaining spirituality and divine forces it is a joke.

This would only make sense if the Bible was a book that set out to explain such things. In fact the bible is a book that sets out to explain the rules for human beings connecting with God and connecting with other humans.

Its first section is based on Judaism and outdated Jewish law (a HUGE section in the Old testament) and creation story based on earlier Pagan and nativist religions including aspects from Greek mythology and its second section is on a self proclaimed prophet and his disciples discrepant recollections of the said prophet with writings infused by Roman authoritarians at the time.

The bible is very redundant thus it has avoided you being able to miss the point despite shenanigans by others.

Lest we forget, the Old testament was used to justify Eureopean slavery, as the Jews had slaves and they had laws governing the treatment and fair use of those slaves. Next time time the next round of imperialists come crashing through your borders do not be suprised if they use the great Bible to justify their oppression.

The making of money was also used to justify European slavery, but I never see people come out against money with the idea that it was too connected to European slavery to be acceptable.

For anyone to hold up the bible or the quran and proclaim it is the be all and end all of life is an idiot. For anyone to hold the belief that evolution is th end all and be all of the origins of organisms is equally an idiot.

Anyone holding up their view of religious people as the be all and end all of religious people, has not been paying attention.

Evolution is a THEORY. Its not a Scientific fact or law. its a theory. A very good one that seems to explain alot of events that occur in organisms such as why genetic mutations occur for example. But ofcourse it doesnt address several things such as the driving force behind such said mutations. It is a known fact that a single human cell kept alive for years does not spontaneously mutate (and as such what caused and drove the evolution of unicellular organisms to multicellular is not known). But Science evolves as well.

Scientific theory's do not work like other theory's, evolution can not be so easily dismissed because it is a theory. A lot of the parts to evolution are of course pure garbage (we do not come from monkeys) but a lot of other parts are just regular science that evolutionists like to label part of Toe.

Anyone who doesnt believe that there is an unknown driving force behind this almostly infinetely complex world is an idiot. But you are a bigger idiot if you think the bible even addresses it sufficiently or is the end all and be all of explaining this unknown mysterious force. I hold Christianity on the same plane and level as Greek mythology, Judiasm and the plethora of native religions that where killed off by Christian Missionaries and those that still exist today.

Good luck with that.

there's credibility for those who believe in each , or both, or neither

the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. like all scientific thoeries that are not laws it has holes. i never said theories where not held in high esteem by scientists, learn to read. And laws are held in higher regard to theories. Go read any introductory science book. The thoery of evolution does seek to explain the origin of species. read darwins work of the same name. people try to reply to my facts by posting bs and irrelevant nonsense. the evolution thoery contains alot of facts like genetic mutations (which supports the idea that organisms might infact evolve, so does dna and genes and genetic processes) it does not state for a fact that evolution does occur hence it is still a THEORY. When such physical proof is shown it will become a LAW

basic scientific methods illeterates

and capitalistic society as we know it has huge problems and flaws. making money has inherent evils and is not neccessarily better than the barter system for example. the single minded viewpoints of post-colonial drones never ceases to amaze me.

shango:

the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. like all scientific thoeries that are not laws it has holes.

What do you mean by holes? Is it not complete? Of course not, no theory is complete and a theory is never intended to be complete. A theory is an explanative [/b]framework for observed phenomena.

shango:

i never said theories where not held in high esteem by scientists, learn to read. And laws are held in higher regard to theories.

Who gave you that idea? A law is [b]descriptive, not explanatory, there is no pecking order between theory and law, they have entirely different functions.

shango:

Go read any introductory science book. The thoery of evolution does seek to explain the origin of species. read darwins work of the same name.

Among others, but it is not limited to that.

shango:

people try to reply to my facts by posting bs and irrelevant nonsense. the evolution thoery contains alot of facts like genetic mutations (which supports the idea that organisms might infact evolve, so does dna and genes and genetic processes) it does not state for a fact that evolution does occur hence it is still a THEORY. When such physical proof is shown it will become a LAW

Absolutely utter balony. You couldn't be further from the truth.

These links will provide you some background on the difference:
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

shango:

basic scientific methods illeterates

You shouldn't be so quick on the draw, as your understanding is far from accurate or complete.

shango:

and capitalistic society as we know it has huge problems and flaws. making money has inherent evils and is not neccessarily better than the barter system for example. the single minded viewpoints of post-colonial drones never ceases to amaze me.

And how is that relevant here?

THE EVOLVED MONKEYS ARE BACK

@nferyn
There are quite a number ways of defining the word theory in the scientific community, but 1 which tickles my fancy says a theory is"a reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof "(Steen, 1971).
This is a perfect description of Toe
And by the way, the reason y I detest u referring me to sites is because I want you to present your explanation to me the way YOU understand it so that I can show you where you're wrong. I can also refer you to sites!!! this is the iternet man!
@shango
You're thinking i the right direction,but you're a little too hasty in ur conclusions, take it easy dog,nobody's threatng to eat u up, cool down

@nferyn
I quoted that definition from one of ur links.butt i cant resist stating that the carlton link is nothing but crap wrapped in sugary words. Please read it urself and tell me if u think it makes any sense, if it does to you, then ( )

Drusilla:

Scientific theory's do not work like other theory's, evolution can not be so easily dismissed because it is a theory. A lot of the parts to evolution are of course pure garbage (we do not come from monkeys) but a lot of other parts are just regular science that evolutionists like to label part of Toe.

More often than not, the "pure garbage" in the theory of evolution results from misunderstandings and strawmen; for example, the ToE doesn't say we come from monkeys (as in common use of the word).

I'm assuming this post was addressed to me

shango:

the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. like all scientific thoeries that are not laws it has holes.

What? THank goodness Nferyn has reposted some links explaining what laws and theories mean.

i never said theories where not held in high esteem by scientists, learn to read.

My apologies, I thought that was what you were implying

And laws are held in higher regard to theories. Go read any introductory science book.

I made the mistake of elevating theory above law (thanks again Nferyn), and you've made the mistake of elevating law above theory, they are both held in the same regard. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, Einstein's theory of relativity superceded Newtons law of gravity, so sometimes theories can supercede laws.

The thoery of evolution does seek to explain the origin of species. read darwins work of the same name.

I know, that's what I said.

people try to reply to my facts by posting bs and irrelevant nonsense.

You mean facts like: "Jewish law and creation story based on earlier Pagan and nativist religions including aspects from Greek mythology", or "But ofcourse it doesnt address several things such as the driving force behind such said mutations", and don't get me started on the cell thing you wrote.

the evolution thoery contains alot of facts like genetic mutations (which supports the idea that organisms might infact evolve, so does dna and genes and genetic processes) it does not state for a fact that evolution does occur hence it is still a THEORY. When such physical proof is shown it will become a LAW

No, evolution, like gravity et al, is a fact, the theory of evolution, like the theory of relativity, uses a lot of evidence to try to explain why that fact occurs, and what it does, amongst other things. Also, theories are never graduated to laws, but hopefilly you already know that.

basic scientific methods illeterates

It usually helps, if you are going to accuse others of illiteracy, that you be able to spell "illiterate". Just a friendly tip.

and capitalistic society as we know it has huge problems and flaws. making money has inherent evils and is not neccessarily better than the barter system for example. the single minded viewpoints of post-colonial drones never ceases to amaze me.

That's nice.[quote][/quote]

simmy:

@nferyn
There are quite a number ways of defining the word theory in the scientific community, but 1 which tickles my fancy says a theory is"a reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof "(Steen, 1971).
This is a perfect description of Toe

Actually it isn't. This is a better description, "A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).". By the way, of course there a number of ways to define "theory" in the scientific theory (that's to be expected), but the scientific community gennerally agree on what a theory represents.

yer rite, the scientific community agrees that a theory is not automatically equal to fact.In this case,(T.oe) the most amusing thing is that the theory tries to explain phenomena that exists only in the overworked mind of some self-deluding people.
P.s no one has taken up my challenge on speciation

simmy:

yer rite, the scientific community agrees that a theory is not automatically equal to fact.

What? Of course a theory isn't a fact; theories are often used to explain the how of facts though.

In this case,(T.oe) the most amusing thing is that the theory tries to explain phenomena that exists only in the overworked mind of some self-deluding people.

Don't be silly. The ToE explains pretty well how evolution - which is a fact - occurs.

P.s no one has taken up my challenge on speciation

What challenge on speciation? Surely you don't mean the one where you asked for examples of observed speciation, and then either handwaved them away, or completely ignored them? Anyway, some examples of speciation for your viewing pleasure again: speciation in peonies; Elephants: two species of African elephant, and another species of Asian elephants.

na waoo. This thread still dey?

Kag, Nferyn, Simmy, Rhodalyn etc,
Please check out this thread to see how logical and scientific our christian brethren are.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-17418.32.html#msg484688

lioness:

na waoo. This thread still dey?

Well like all things must do, it seems to be coming to an end. Unfortunately though, this thread didn't feature much, if any, of the anti-evolutionists explanation of creationism/ID/wwhatever. Maybe next time.

ajia23:

Kag, Nferyn, Simmy, Rhodalyn etc,
Please check out this thread to see how logical and scientific our christian brethren are.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-17418.32.html#msg484688

Okay? What on earth does that have to do with the subject at hand? You do know many Christians are both logical and scientific right?

@kag
Evolution is NOT a fact. T.oe tries to expalin something that does not exist.About the elephants i think i've posted about them before, i'm not too sure but until u expalin to me xctly how the african variety is a different species from the asian variety i'll just have to keep quiet

Well Kag, just check the link out and you will see that in the past, they claimed to be all peaceful, logical and christ-like while denouncing every other person. But in this thread, their true nature has been revealed. It would certainly make you wonder at their supposed principled stance and godliness.

I made the mistake of elevating theory above law (thanks again Nferyn), and you've made the mistake of elevating law above theory, they are both held in the same regard. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, Einstein's theory of relativity superceded Newtons law of gravity, so sometimes theories can supercede laws.

Einsteins theory of relativity attempts to explain many things. Newtons law of gravity still holds in a certain framework where the frame of reference speed is much less than the speed of light, in such a framework relativistic forces hardly play a part. Hence Eintsteins relativity theory made Newtons law of gravity more precise. The original law holds and still holds for most macro objects that move at comparitively lower speeds than c. A Scientific Law is and always has been above a Scientific theory.

In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework — derived from a small set of basic principles (usually symmetries - like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc) — which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. A good example is electromagnetic theory, which encompasses the results that can be derived from gauge symmetry (sometimes called gauge invariance) in a form of a few equations called Maxwell's equations. Another name for this theory is classical electromagnetism. Note that the specific theoretical aspects of classical electromagnetic theory, which have been consistently and successfully replicated for well over a century, are termed "laws of electromagneticsm", reflecting the fact that they are today taken as granted. Within electromagnetic theory generally, there are numerous hypotheses about how electromagnetism applies to specific situations. Many of these hypotheses are already considered to be adequately confirmed, with new ones always in the making and perhaps untested as yet.

Taken from a wiki article on law. Laws are understood to be unmutable. Hence over time the theory of electromagnetism has been ELEVATED to law status. There is a clear heirarchy. String theory for example may become a law when it is proven using empirical data and scientific methods. I do not get why you are still arguing this.

What? THank goodness Nferyn has reposted some links explaining what laws and theories mean.

yes, I did the same as well. Both support my statements. The theory of evolution is NOT A LAW YET because it has not be rigorously tested to elevate it to law status like the theory of electromagnetism. And while it explains genetic mutations it does not explain how and why species evolve. Show me ONE INSTANCE of a physical experiment showing a species that has been made to evolve to a totally new species. And no, cross breeding and mixed breeding is NOT EVOLUTION.

Jewish law and creation story based on earlier Pagan and nativist religions including aspects from Greek mythology", or "But ofcourse it doesnt address several things such as the driving force behind such said mutations", and don't get me started on the cell thing you wrote.

Uhhh, those are all facts. And what cell thing. Be specific.

It usually helps, if you are going to accuse others of illiteracy, that you be able to spell "illiterate". Just a friendly tip.

thanks for pointing out a TYPO on a inet forum. Can you also correct my punctuation pretty please. Forgive me, next time I will reread what I type so it can face the scrutiny of a faceless Inet board user such as yourself.

Don't be silly. The ToE explains pretty well how evolution - which is a fact - occurs.

evolution is not a fact IT IS A THEORY. The theory explains certain facts like genetic mutations, it is not itself a fact. It is not a fact that things evolve. If it was it would be the law of evolution. The TOE does not fully explain how one species evolves to another, it hypothesizes based on certain observable facts, like shared phenotypical traits, genetic mutations, etc.

If it truly is a fact like you say, please explain how the homo erectus evolved to the homo sapien. GO ON. EXPLAIN IT. EVOLUTION IS A FACT RIGHT. GO AHEAD AND USE THE FACT OF EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN THE EVOLUTION BETWEEN THE TWO SPECIES MENTIONED.

I bet my life you cannot, and I wonder why

seun

seun

seun

how many times i call u?

KAG:

ajia23 link=topic=11284.msg484695#msg484695 date=1152595236:

Kag, Nferyn, Simmy, Rhodalyn etc,
Please check out this thread to see how logical and scientific our christian brethren are.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-17418.32.html#msg484688

Okay? What on earth does that have to do with the subject at hand? You do know many Christians are both logical and scientific right?

That's what amazes me - biko, helep me ask am well: what really has ajia23's whining got to do with the subject at hand? At least, I've discoursed with Kag and nferyn, agreed and disagreed, and they continue to have my respects at the end of the day; and I've learnt tremendously from them. True, some of us Christians may not be both logical and scientific all the time, but most often we do our best to be. By snivelling here, has it proven that ajia23 is actually logical in his irrelevant interjection in the subject of this thread?

Gwaine:

Okay? What on earth does that have to do with the subject at hand? You do know many Christians are both logical and scientific right?

That's what amazes me - biko, helep me ask am well: what really has ajia23's whining got to do with the subject at hand?

Nothing at all. I guess it's because Muslims claim that current scientific knowledge was foretold [/i]in the Qu'ran that [i]ajia23 thinks he'll have our support

Gwaine:

At least, I've discoursed with Kag and nferyn, agreed and disagreed, and they continue to have my respects at the end of the day; and I've learnt tremendously from them.

The feeling is mutual

Gwaine:

True, some of us Christians may not be both logical and scientific all the time, but most often we do our best to be.

I wouldn't agree with that. Most Christians (and Atheists, Muslims, etc) couldn't care less about logic and scientific principles, it's just rationalisation of already held beliefs with an intellectual coating.

Gwaine:

By snivelling here, has it proven that ajia23 is actually logical in his irrelevant interjection in the subject of this thread?

I really don't know why he participated in this thread. There was another Christian person (forgot his username, Lioness' last post here was about that) that did the same. I don't understand why Seun removed that post and not the one from ajia23

nferyn:

The feeling is mutual

You see why you continue to have my respects? I only hope that even though my rejoinders were somewhat impulsive (regrettably so) when we debated issues, you could forgive me for the past. And thanks.

nferyn:

I wouldn't agree with that. Most Christians (and Atheists, Muslims, etc) couldn't care less about logic and scientific principles, it's just rationalisation of already held beliefs with an intellectual coating.

It's only a matter of one's view on things - just like yours, which I would be inclined to respect regardless of the fact that I may not agree with you when it comes to belief. To be sure, most people often see this idea of "already held beliefs with intellectual coating" as applicable to Christianity more than to Islam. All the same, I'm sure that you'd agree that there are experiences that cannot be scientifically explicated, even though more and more scientists are making effort to query them. We'll just wait for their summations when they do come up with something.

nferyn:

I really don't know why he participated in this thread. There was another Christian person (forgot his username, Lioness' last post here was about that) that did the same. I don't understand why Seun removed that post and not the one from ajia23

Well, I cannot hold his legs over the fire for having even said anything on this thread - else I'm guilty as well, since my posts have not really been in sync with the subject. I was jut wondering that his input was a bit of a distraction to the thrust of the subject.

Thanks for your observations.