What if the Theory of Evolution is Right? (Part I)

Curiously, he seemed quite objective when discussing that (but he disappeared very quickly after having started).

My theory? He loathed the book before reading it. I don't believe he even bought it.

pawnwhacker wrote:

My theory? He loathed the book before reading it. I don't believe he even bought it.

.

I am sure he bought it.

HF clings for dear life to his belief that "all atheists support evolution, therefore all evolution supporters are atheists."

Reading Dawkins haughty rants will only strengthen that belief.

I too am sure HF at least started to read the book (I don't believe he is cunningly deceptive in the way he would have to be if not).

Indeed I believe the reason he left this discussion was cognitive dissonance with what he found in the book. Specifically, he stated he had not yet found anything to disagree with.

I was amused by his wish for atheists here to state that they accepted everything in Dawkins' book so that he could then read it, refute it, and prove atheists wrong once and for all. It didn't quite go to plan. 

You guys do know that you don't actually need to buy the book? It's available at most public libraries. That's how I obtained a copy. 2 weeks checkout plus 2 week renewal here.

I was careful not to use the word "buy". It is only of concern whether he read it.

He said that he had bought it and was going to: "I'll be back!!!"

But perhaps the book made him into a "believer" of evolution.

Or, maybe he is studying to improve his chess play. He most certainly could benefit from that!

Really funny, many people say my theory and never prove anything just make a lame bland statement.

So here is my theory, theories do not exist except in the mind of theoricians.

Theories need to be proven period!

Well, one does not have to be an atheist to find evolution credible. The best example of that is the Pope. These days, even he has become a "believer". He doesn't want the Galileo embarassment de ja vue. He also believes in the big bang. (Of couse, he believes Jesus is the author of same).

I'm still waiting to hear how he reconciles the 6,000 year age (according to the Bible itself) of Earth vs. the 4.5 billion years according to science. IMO...this is a binary thing. Either 6k years or 4.5 x 10 to the 9th...one or the other. What a dilemma for the faithful!

Also, e99 is absent. Perhaps he has acknowledged defeat? Perhaps he is reading Dawkins to get "up to speed"?

And, yes, the book can be borrowed from a library for free. Me? Once upon a time, I used to go the library. I was sort of fond of the Dewey Decimal System and the card files...the smell of musky, used books.

Though, I haven't been to a library since the computer era. For around $10 as a download from Amazon, the convenience and the savings of time and gasoline make it an imperative. Plus the ease of bookmarks and other features and having a library of books on a tablet...well, for an old guy, I am quite the "modern man". 

I see that you have no idea of what a scientific "theory" is. I have to go (for now...practice my tap dancing). Perhaps Elroch or someone else can explain what "theory" actually means in regards to science.

Christmas time PW. hard to argue! Thinking about turkey, presents, family, etc.

pawnwhacker - the pope has also conceded the issue of how old the universe and earth are. He's pretty modern on these points. What he and I do not concede at this point is that genomic and fossil evidence do not constitute proof that there is no underlying designer. That is, you can keep making the pile of genomic and fossil observations larger and larger but by examining this evidence, how can you tell if it was design changes or random shuffling of molecules?

Really funny, certain types of people make posts about the word "theory" when then don't even know what it means. In fact they make statements which are contrary to the meaning.

A scientific theory is (by definition) the most solid type of knowledge we possess about the real world.

In the unlikely event that you wish to actually know what the word means rather than ignorantly jeering, read any article explaining the term, such as Scientific Theory.

Because this concept is so crucial, scientists rarely use the word "theory" for an explanation, mechanism or model which may be false: they prefer other terms such as "hypothesis" or "conjecture".

Note that there is etymologically related term in mathematics: a "theorem" is a significant result that has been proved.

Common descent is a hypothetical scenario Gopher. Gravition is a theory. 😊

So say you.

Here is what the reference that Elroch posted (directly above you) says:

"Like all knowledge in science, no theory can ever be completely certain, since it is possible that future experiments might conflict with the theory's predictions.^[4] However, theories supported by the scientific consensus have the highest level of certainty of any scientific knowledge; for example, that all objects are subject to gravity or that life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor."

Note: I didn't make any of the words above enlarged or in bold. That's how the pasting came down. I tried to unaccentuate but could not do so.

I saw a story of two cosmologists this year who want to change the definition of a theory. They suggest that if a story is sufficiently adequate and explanatory, then it should pass as a theory. So much for experimental and empirical evidence.

This overthrows every definition of theory for the last several hundred years.

Anecdotal. You've proved nothing.

I'm pretty sure the Cambrian explosion falsifies common descent!😉

Besides, it's up to the claimant to prove something PW.😭