Proof of Evolution

[hifi_killer]

and black holes are not a theory, it is a prediction. a bold prediction that has been observed to be true. I don't think you are capable of differentiating a theory from a prediction from a hypothesis.

As for fossils, you can never be sure that those fossils had off springs could you? you can't even be sure 100% of the date of the fossils. so you cannot compare fossils to black holes because black holes you can actually see stars and matter being pulled apart. mind you the prediction of a black hole and all of its properties (invisible, pulling matter apart, etc) has been predicted long before it has been discovered.

and if Karl Popper's rules fail, please do state an alternative because I am trying to establish a standard as to what a theory is. if we can't even establish what a theory is then we can't even have a debate about Evolution Theory can we?

Honestly you have not posted any links or references and I have posted a lot. so how do I know that what you are saying now is true?

hypothesis > theory > prediction
Evolution is a theory, using that theory we predict/infer that X evolved from Y.

as i said, there is no way to observe black holes directly, instead you observe it through indirect evidence, same for evolution.

the 'pictures' of black holes only show the gravitational lens effect and the relative position of galaxies,these are only indirect evidence.

You probably had misinterpreted that wiki quote as direct evidence.

Black holes have an impact on stars , EM waves. And so you indirectly observe the black hole through stars being torn apart and EM waves anormalies.

the process of evolution has an impact on fossils. So you indirectly observe evolution through fossils.

Whats so different?

Also you do not see stars being torn apart ,the whole process of the star being torn apart by a black hole takes extremely lot of time. What you see from the telescope is only a a microscopic time frame of the entire process of the death of a star. You only infer that the star is being torn apart from the relative position of planets and matter from the snapshot, you do not see the star's shape changed from day 1, day 2, or year 1 to year 2.

Its like evolution, you do not need to observe the entire length of the evolution of mankind to claim that X evolved from Y, instead you observe it through small snapshots of it through fossils, and also through micro evolutions that was cited in the original article in post #1

regarding the accuracy of dating. well , look at it this way for black holes, we make physical measurements of objects many light years, many billion years away. Dont you think that there will be more room for error in such physical measurements compared to radiological dating on earth? Do you think we can be sure that a particular black hole is of X kg, and exerts a gravity of Y m/s^2 , has age of Z years old?

Also, i do understand the limitations of carbon dating, but are any similar criticisms for lead-lead dating, uranium-lead dating? Both have much larger range.

I dont understand why do you claim big bang theory being part of evolution theory. Theres clearly no link. They were different theories that were theorized by different theorists who had different philosophical and religious orientation

I dont see a need to cite external sources, if i think i can explain it myself.

Alternative?
Who determines whats a science and whats not? politicians? religious leaders? scientists? the enlightened people in europe? Is there a clear line that divides the scientifc theories from the pseudo-scientific theories?

 

[growlingsoulpup]

hifi_killer=epic own, can juggle exams and debate evolution together.

 

[Morlock]

We can discuss this all day but if we cannot set rules as to what makes a theory then we are going no where.

 

[Morlock]

hypothesis > theory > prediction

this does not explain anything. I understand that from hypothesis we get theories from theories we get prediction. but that does not explain anything. it does not say what is the characteristics of each and how to tell each other apart.

Evolution is a theory, using that theory we predict/infer that X evolved from Y.

Yes I totally agree but we would probably have to wait for a time machine or a million years to check if it is really true and that there is no other explanation to it except evolution.

as i said, there is no way to observe black holes directly, instead you observe it through indirect evidence, same for evolution.

the 'pictures' of black holes only show the gravitational lens effect and the relative position of galaxies,these are only indirect evidence.

You probably had misinterpreted that wiki quote as direct evidence.

Black holes have an impact on stars , EM waves. And so you indirectly observe the black hole through stars being torn apart and EM waves anormalies.

Did I say anything about directly seeing a black hole? maybe you misinterpret me? but there is no doubt that this phenomena is observable right? what I'm trying to say is that black hole is an amazing prediction of the theory of relativity and that there is there is no other way of explaining it.

the process of evolution has an impact on fossils. So you indirectly observe evolution through fossils.

Whats so different?

the difference is fossils cannot tell anything. we cannot not observed how it lived, died, mated, hunted. we can only make inferences. but inferences are sometimes subjective to who is making the inferences .

Also you do not see stars being torn apart ,the whole process of the star being torn apart by a black hole takes extremely lot of time. What you see from the telescope is only a a microscopic time frame of the entire process of the death of a star. You only infer that the star is being torn apart from the relative position of planets and matter from the snapshot, you do not see the star's shape changed from day 1, day 2, or year 1 to year 2.

Its like evolution, you do not need to observe the entire length of the evolution of mankind to claim that X evolved from Y, instead you observe it through small snapshots of it through fossils, and also through micro evolutions that was cited in the original article in post #1

The difference is we saw stars being torn apart. have you seen an animal evolving into a different kind? no because it takes millions of years.

regarding the accuracy of dating. well , look at it this way for black holes, we make physical measurements of objects many light years, many billion years away. Dont you think that there will be more room for error in such physical measurements compared to radiological dating on earth? Do you think we can be sure that a particular black hole is of X kg, and exerts a gravity of Y m/s^2 , has age of Z years old?

Also, i do understand the limitations of carbon dating, but are any similar criticisms for lead-lead dating, uranium-lead dating? Both have much larger range.

all dating methods have assumptions that there is no change in our atmosphere for millions of years. this is something we can not validate.

I dont understand why do you claim big bang theory being part of evolution theory. Theres clearly no link. They were different theories that were theorized by different theorists who had different philosophical and religious orientation

The problem is when discussing evolution theory, big bang always comes up as well. including soup to cell theory.

Alternative?
Who determines whats a science and whats not? politicians? religious leaders? scientists? the enlightened people in europe? Is there a clear line that divides the scientifc theories from the pseudo-scientific theories?

So you are saying that there is no standard? well that explains the confusion for everyone.