What's new

The Battle Begins

As a general thing part of being a theory? I don't think so.
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
I am quite certain that no amount of evidence will show you otherwise.

I asked you to define the "theory of evolution" with your own "scientific theory" definition and you failed to do that and now you are backpedaling on your own definition and copping out with a link.
If you can't even define the theory then I can't really consider any amount of evidence that supposedly supports it.
 
I asked you to define the "theory of evolution" with your own "scientific theory" definition

1) Not being a biologist, I couldn't begin to define the theory of evolution in a comprehensive manner.
2) While I could give a reasonble defintion of a scientific theory, I have made no such attempt in this thread.

and you failed to do that

1) Not being a biologist, I couldn't begin to define the theory of evolution with any authority. If you are actually interested in learning about it, start at talkorigins.org. Say, https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html for example.
2) While I could give a reasonble defintion of a scientific theory, I have made no such attempt in this thread, nor did you explicitly ask for such.

and now you are backpedaling on your own definition

I offered you two examples of predictions with timelines, as you requested (antibiotic resistance and Tiltaalik rosae).

and copping out with a link.

Two links containing several more predicions, which I notice you don't question.

If you can't even define the theory then I can't really consider any amount of evidence that supposedly supports it.

Why should the inability of a mathematician/database administrator to authoritatively define a biological theory prevent you from considering evidence for the theory?
 
1) Not being a biologist, I couldn't begin to define the theory of evolution in a comprehensive manner.

No one can. Once Darwin's theory was disproved it became an undefined dogma, a nondisprovable pseudoscience.

2) While I could give a reasonble defintion of a scientific theory, I have made no such attempt in this thread.

That's a lie. We just went through a whole discussion on your definition of scientific theory and its refinement:

There was no theory for Mengele's experiment to come from. A theory means an tested explanation that makes predicitons, but I didn't see that for Mengele's work.

3) Your definition of a “scientific” theory is inaccurate or incomplete because prophecies predict the future and are “tested“ when they do or do not come to fruition.

Eugenics theory: The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded."

Again, completely lacking in tested explanations with predictive power.

The following prophecy is explanatory with its predictive power: "God thinks the world is too wicked so he is gonna rapture the good ones just prior to end.

I see no explanation and no prediction, just a lot of handwaving.

The prediction is that people will be raptured. The explanation for this is that the world is too wicked for these good people to remain any longer.

A predction requires a timeline and precision to tell whether it has definitiely occured or not, and an explanation requires a mechanism. Prophcies do not use either.

So your evolving self-serving definition of a scientific theory has gotten you in a bind.

Where is the man made global warming theorists precise timeline? Algore's dooms day prophecy?

What is the "theory of evolution" prediction? That humans will evolve into super humans?
What is this theory's precise timeline so we know whether it has definitely occurred or not?

You claimed a theory makes a prediction with a precise timeline and a mechanism.
 
I'm pretty sure Milsappa is just a figment of the internet's imagination. Nobody is that jaded.
 
No one can. Once Darwin's theory was disproved...

That's a nice lie to spread.

That's a lie. We just went through a whole discussion on your definition of scientific theory and its refinement:

Where did I claim that was a reasonable defintion of a theory. At best, it's a property of theories. Also, evidence for specific predicitons along specific tmelines within evolutionary theory has been offered, so the theory of evolution has that property.
 
I am waiting for the "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" argument.
 
I am waiting for the "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" argument.



I'll make an attempt to tie it in

Evolution is the process in which the species that adapts most effectively to change, continues to survive and produce offspring where it's less adaptive counterparts cannot.

The word "Is" according to standard English vocabulary and tradition means "to be"

By stating that evolution "is" the process in which species that adapt to change are most likely to procreate. I have proven that evolution, in fact, is the process in which species that adapt to change are most likely to procreate.

Hence, proving evolution, depending on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
 
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The-Joker again.
 
Back
Top