That is weird. You are usually among the "it's just a theory" crowd.

My position is the same as it has always been. ..that's why I said "DITTO" to the textbook statement on "theory".

Note the highlighted applied to my position which is ----Darwinism alleges over eons of time a natural transition from reptiles to mammals is "just a popular definition of theory---namely a 'guess' or 'specualtion'".

Well, then you have somehow managed to come across completely different than you really are.

I had you down as one of the types who didn't believe that Darwin's theory is not "an explanation that can hold up against repeated experimentation".

You certainly claimed to disagree with that.

The quoted text says that a theory is NOT a "guess or speculation". It does NOT say that Darwin's theory is a guess or speculation. It says that Darwin's theory is NOT a guess or speculation.

You misquoted the highlighted statement.

wow... talk about utter failure in reading comprehention.

it clearly says that a theory only means "a guess" when used in regular conversaion between people, but the scientific term "theory" means a repeatable, verifiable, best explanation according to evidence. This is a lot like the "android / robot" thing, people keep on calling androids "robots" on TV. But according to the actual definitions, the two are completely different.

Likewise according to the actual scientific definition, a theory is not "a guess"

LOL.....Ya, it happens sometimes! 

Upon reading your comment back to me, perhaps I did.

Just to clarify, lest more confusion becasue I'm sure another blog on Evolution Theory will pop up sooner or later...

I said that Darwinism alleges over eons of time a natural transition from reptiles to mammals is "just a popular definition of "theory"---namely a 'guess' or 'specualtion'". As I read the textbook quote I thought that went right along with defining "theory" as 

Certainly Darwinism as I described has not been able to hold up against repeated experimentation.

Oddly enough it does.

The fact that you are and remain ignorant of such experiments doesn't really mean much.

The definition of science really has nothing to do with whether you understand it or not.

Have you knowledge of any true scientific experiments or empirical evidence that show natural transition from reptiles into mammals?

Leauki -

Don't.  Please don't.  These are poor electrons, harming no one.  Let them move on.

I don't think reptiles ever turned into mammals, but both have common ancestors.

You are confusing one of today's species turning into another (which Darwinism denies is possible) and evolution (which results in different species but never ever causes one species to "turn into" another.

I have seen experiments showing that animals changed over generations. Can you explain why you assume that they would stop doing so at a certain point? (Note that "species" depends on a single point in time. The concept of "species" does not exist from one generation to another so any claim about a "species border" is irrelevant.)

We agree I don't think reptiles ever turned into mammals either.

But..."both have common ancestors"? This is Evolution Theory speak. What scientific evidence shows reptiles and mammals come from common ancestors? Where is the evidence that phylogeny exists, clear and identified?

I understand that science proves that each kind of reptile have their own common ancestors and that science proves that each kind of mammals have their own common ancestors, but not that reptiles and mammals have common ancestors between them.

You and I are from the human family tree and we both have a common ancestor in Adam and Eve..one root, lots of branches all "within kind".  We share no common ancestor(s) with any other mammal, reptile or otherwise...they each have their own separate root and lots of branches.  

Yes, I believe that animals and plants can change over generations...depends on natural circumstances for that to happen and the way the genes within kind reshuffle or recombine...I think the Ark might have had 2 of one kind of Dog and they diversified over time.  This is properly called Recombination or Variety within Kind. Does recombination or Variety within kind continue...sure it can and does

Now, the human body though has always been just as we appear today.

There are mounds of both physical evidence (fossils and the like), and genetic evidence.

That you think the fossil evidence was placed there by satan to trick us, or that you are incapable of comprehending the genetic evidence is irrelevant.

Ah yes... the proven to be false theory of deletion based micro-evolution posited by creationists... If you beleive that, then you also do not beleive in cancer, moles, or the countless experiments that observed the "creation" of "new" genes in a lab.

There is a reason why we wear sunblock and protect our gonads with a lead patch when taking xrays. and that reason is called mutations.

It didn't even look the same 100,000 years ago, let alone "always".

Genetics show that all animals share an ancestor. That alone is enough.

The idea that all living things share a genetic code just by chance is ridiculous. And the story that some evil smurf or some other supernatural being planted the code in all his creations has nothing to do with science. The only scientific explanation (i.e. explanation that doesn't require smurf or similar beings) is common descent.

Always remember:

Science: explanation that doesn't require smurfs

Not science: any explanation that requires smurfs

Forget about that "kind" thing.

Kinds do not exist over time, only at specific moments.

You are just showing that you don't understand the theory you are arguing against.

also, "science" doesn't prove anything. science most definitely does not SAY anything. Science (latin for "to know) is just the philosophy of seeking knowledge by using constructed logical thinking and disproveable assumptions instead of simply saying "I declare it to be true, so therefore it is".

PEOPLE have disproven many things while utilizing science.

Example of science:

1. Observation: the flashlight is broken

2. Hypothesis: Replacing a bulb always fixes a broken flashlight

3. Test: proven false, it did not fix the flashlight in question.

4. Hypothesis 2: replacing a battery always fixes a broken flashlight

5. Test 1: not proven false, flashlight now works.

*now repeat the test many times

6. Test 2: not proven false, second flashlight also works.

7. Test 3: proven false, flashlight not fixed by replacing battery.

* now analize result

8. Hypothesis 3: replacing a battery SOMETIMES fixes a broken flashlight...

and so on and so on.

As you observe and experiment you can make theories, and refine them.

Repeat experiments again and again and find new information you can use to further refine and make your theories more accurate, by accounting for rare situation or unexpected variables.

EX of non scientific reasoning:

1. I found a book that says the world is made up of four elements: water, earth, fire, and water.

2. I decided it must be real because it is a pretty cool concept.

3. I am gonna go and cast some magic spells now.

Another example of non scientific reasoning:

1. I found a book that says the world is 6000 years old, and the earth center of the universe (and the sun revolves around it).

2. I am just going to beleive it because all my friends and family beleive it too.

3. I am gonna ignore any evidence, such as telescopic evidence or mathematical calculations, that proves what I beleive in to be false.

Another example of scientific reasoning:

1. I found a book that says the world is 6000 years old, and the earth center of the universe (and the sun revolves around it).

2. hypothesis: if earth is the center of the universe, than I can make observations with a telescope and perform some calculus and verify it.

3. Test: falsifies hypothesis.

4. conclusions: The book in question is wrong about the earth being the center of the universe.

5. hypothesis: if the earth is 6000 years old than: <insert a plethorea of tests and proofs here>.

6. Problem. I do not have the resources to run those experiments...

7. Analysis:

the claim that the earth is 6000 years old is made by a book full of made up claims that I have personally verified to be false, that book contains absolutely no evidence or sources quoted, simply a claim to be taken on blind trust...

the claim that the earth is older than 6000 years is made a plethorea of sources which use scientific reasoning and provide evidence.

While it is possible that the evidence is faked, it seems as a more legitimate source, until I have the wealth to personally test this, I shall trust the people who follow scientific reasoning and provide evidence and experiments to back up their conclusions, rather then the book that is full of falsities which I have personally verified to be made up balony.

lula posts:

Really? What did the human body look like and where is the empircal evidence of such?

And where is the empirical evidence there were humans 100,000 years ago?

My questions take us back to the original point. Which is, in truth, your assertion that the human body looked different 100, 000 years ago, comes under the popular definition of evolution "theory"---namely a 'guess' or 'speculation and one that has not been able to hold up against repeated experimentation.