Is Evolution a Scientific Law, Theory, or both?

[Narkro555]

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2

A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, it looks like Evolution is covered as a law. Evolution is an aspect of the natural world, and it's pretty descriptive and generalized as well.

it's a person's choice to believe in something

That choice is one of the reasons we have morons like Mystroo.

[Ad Bot]

[Demian]

Changing to another species is fact, that happens all the times in dogs.

Learn your loving terms. Penguins and lions are two different species. Labrador retriever and dalmatians are both subspecies of C. l. familiaris.

[Fracture]

it's a person's choice to believe in something

That has nothing to do what we're talking about. Please leave this thread.

[Electrk]

The Bible is basically science from 1000s of years ago.
The Bible is made up of theries, but ones that are not as relevant today because better ones have been made.

The Bible is made up of bullstuff stories. That's it, stories.
Not theories, there's no science behind it.

[SeventhSandwich]

The Bible is basically science from 1000s of years ago.
The Bible is made up of theries, but ones that are not as relevant today because better ones have been made.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2

Educate yourself. What you've said is incorrect.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, it looks like Evolution is covered as a law. Evolution is an aspect of the natural world, and it's pretty descriptive and generalized as well.
That choice is one of the reasons we have morons like Mystroo.

If something falls within the criteria of both a theory and a law, it's usually dubbed a theory because it's more specific.

[Mysteroo]

If we've observed changes in animals that inherit genes related to their appearance, it's completely logical to infer that a fossil of an animal with the same traits is an ancestor.

It could be proof for a common ancestor yes, but it's also just as good proof for a common designer.

Dumbass.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I can't be sure whether or not it's true unless I go dig a hole and start comparing it to the time scale. If I can't be sure that it's true then why should I accept it as good evidence?

1. Dogs don't change species. Canis Lupis IS a species.

2. Things change to different kinds of animals all the time. The peppered moth is an example. Just because it didn't change into a different species doesn't matter. stuff like that doesn't happen in a period of 50 years and natural selection doesn't imply that it does.
That's not how natural selection occurs at all.

1. Ok, I had a brain fart. You can have that
2. changing color I don't think would qualify it to be considered a different kind of animal. Nor do I think an insect changing color is good enough proof to say that I came from some sort of chimp

You have literally no idea what you're talking about and you're spouting the same incorrect jargen since you entered the thread. Read the loving link I sent to you about natural selection and then summarize it for me, or just shut the forget up.

If that's not a 4th grade level summary of what evolution is, then what is it? (and yes, I know I forgot to mention the part fred said, other than that though I don't think there's anything wrong with my explanation.)

I wasn't going to go into detail, I was just giving a simple summary.

What. What the forget is this?

it's a brain fart

Anyways, I can see I'm getting nowhere. And since the majority of you don't want me in this conversation then I'll stop

[Clone v.117]

The bible is neither theories or science, it is a construct of parables (mostly) to lead people to having what is/was considered to be better morals in life.
That's about the gist of it.

[SeventhSandwich]

that's not a 4th grade level summary of what evolution is, then what is it? (and yes, I know I forgot to mention the part fred said, other than that though I don't think there's anything wrong with my explanation.)I wasn't going to go into detail, I was just giving a simple summary

You would know what evolution is if you read my loving link.

Good thing you're leaving the conversation because you won't loving read anything I send you. Why do you refuse to stop being ignorant?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I can't be sure whether or not it's true unless I go dig a hole and start comparing it to the time scale. If I can't be sure that it's true then why should I accept it as good evidence?

Alright you got me on this. If you can't understand the facts, feel free to act dumb and reject the evidence.

I'm sorry for infringing your personal liberty to remain stupid.

2. changing color I don't think would qualify it to be considered a different kind of animal. Nor do I think an insect changing color is good enough proof to say that I came from some sort of chimp

Changing color is an example of what's summarized in the link I sent you about natural selection. You would understand this if you would loving read it. Also nice strawman with the whole, "some sort of chimp" thing.

It could be proof for a common ancestor yes, but it's also just as good proof for a common designer.

Here's the difference. There's proof that these ancestors exist and there's proof of how they formed and how they eventually became individual species through repeated mutation over millions of years. There is absolutely no proof a common designer did it. Why do you believe in God? You have the internet. There's no excuse for you to be stupid. Why are you holding humanity back?

[Narkro555]

If something falls within the criteria of both a theory and a law, it's usually dubbed a theory because it's more specific.

So a theory is more specific and powerful then a law? Sounds backwards to me.

It could be proof for a common ancestor yes, but it's also just as good proof for a common designer.

No it's not. That "designer" was made up by ordinary men to explain what they couldn't explain. If there was a common ancestor then there couldn't have been a designer, since it supposedly made everything in an instant.

Anyways, I can see I'm getting nowhere. And since the majority of you don't want me in this conversation then I'll stop

Actually it'd be nice if we continued. If we have less people believing in pseudoscience such as yourself the world will ultimately become a more intelligent place and science will progress much faster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p5jnqEyUs4

[fred da kiko]

People didn't come come from loving chimps, they came from a similar ancestor as chimps. Saying "i'm not a chimp" is handicapped bullstuff pastors say because they don't understand exactly what evolution is.

[SeventhSandwich]

So a theory is more specific then a law? Sounds backwards to me.

Nevermind, I'm slowly loving up the definitions by responding on too many comments at once.

Use this link to decide whether it's a law or a theory.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2

People didn't come come from loving chimps, they came from a similar ancestor as chimps. Saying "i'm not a chimp" is handicapped bullstuff pastors say because they don't understand exactly what evolution is.

Yeah I've always hated how people call neanderthals chimps.

[Clone v.117]

Peoples bodies are closer to pigs than chimps (body wise), also fun fact, did you know that pigs, light skinned horses and dolphins (i think dolphins) are the only other animals that get sunburnt?
themoreyouknow.jpg

[Narkro555]

Nevermind, I'm slowly loving up the definitions by responding on too many comments at once.

Use this link to decide whether it's a law or a theory.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2

Oh wait, I see what you meant now. I guess you're right.

It would honestly be nicer if it wasn't called a theory though so we would have no more people saying "It's just a theory."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16PpvdpMXo

[SeventhSandwich]

Oh wait, I see what you meant now. I guess you're right.

It would honestly be nicer if it wasn't called a theory though so we would have no more people saying "It's just a theory."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16PpvdpMXo

I blame public schools teaching the definition of theory incorrectly.

My science teacher last year was really strict on the correct definition of theory which I really appreciated.

[Fracture]

I blame public schools teaching the definition of theory incorrectly.

My science teacher last year was really strict on the correct definition of theory which I really appreciated.

My science teacher last year was a Christian and all year she tried to disprove sciencey stuff