It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pope says evolution doesn't mean there's no God

page: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

No, that's not how it works. As has already been pointed out, theories do not become facts and facts do not become theories. Please review the wikipedia entry i posted on scientific theories.

Evolution is both a scientific fact (the empirical evidence, for example, the observations of speciation) and a scientific theory (well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation).




posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: iterationzero


The phenomenon of evolution is a fact -- it is objective observable reality.

Now its no longer a theory its a "phenomenon".

Phenominal indeed.


The theory of evolution only refers to what life does once it's already in existence. The origin of life is another topic entirely.

If you say so. It is the ultimate question in "context" with the phenomenal, scientific theory of Evolution.

Which you just side stepped . Without lifes origins there is only the theory of evolution, which is why its still a theory. I call it adaptation which is proven, but what the hell.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


Evolution is both a scientific fact (the empirical evidence, for example, the observations of speciation) and a scientific theory.


You just said theories are facts, again. You go right on deluding yourself. Thats true belief. Something the scientific and religious world do so well.
edit on 31-10-2014 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Let's add another definition to the list for you to study seeing as context and terminology is not your forte:


A natural phenomenon is not a man-made event. Examples include sunrise, weather (fog, hurricanes, tornadoes), biological processes (decomposition, germination), physical processes (wave propagation, conservation of energy, erosion), tidal flow, and include natural disasters such as electromagnetic pulses, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes.[1][2]


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Show me where I said theories were facts.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Stupid phone multiple posts


edit on 10 31 2014 by Sabiduria because: stupid phone posted same post



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   

edit on 10 31 2014 by Sabiduria because: phone posted same post multiple times



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   

edit on 10 31 2014 by Sabiduria because: stupid phone



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
For all we know you could have been Black Beard in a past life.

What we know compares to what we don't know is huge. We barely know anything yet people claim all the time that we (as a civilization) know lots & we are correct with what we know.
It's like a Kindergartener saying "I know everything cause I'm in school". What a college graduate knows in comparison to a Kindergartener is a huge difference.

edit on 10 31 2014 by Sabiduria because: phone posted by mistake



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
For all we know you could have been Black Beard in a past life.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
For all we know you could have been Black Beard in a past life.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
For all we know you could have been Black Beard in a past life.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: GetHyped


Evolution is both a scientific theory and a scientific fact.

If its a fact its no longer theory. You just again called it a theory. Wheres my link about lifes "origins"?

Done here.


You were done here before you started posting. You haven't added anything other than ignorance to this thread.
WIKI on scientific theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2]


You are flat out wrong. Scientific theories aren't "just theories" (ie guesses). They are multitudes of confirmed facts learned by experimentation and observation.

Evolution is NOT about the origin of life. Repeating that false claim over and over again, doesn't make it true. Origin of life is addressed in abiogenesis hypothesis and others, but is not confirmed. When something is not yet confirmed in science, it is called a HYPOTHESIS, not a theory. It doesn't become a theory until it has been confirmed via repeated experiment.

This explains why scientists are not sure about the origin of life yet. They have ideas, and SOME experiments have shown bits and pieces, but not nearly enough to confirm how life originated. Evolution by definition cannot cause life to originate. Life is a prerequisite.


Which you just side stepped . Without lifes origins there is only the theory of evolution, which is why its still a theory. I call it adaptation which is proven, but what the hell.


I thought you were done here. Evolution = genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. Please explain how genetic mutation can happen without genes. If you wish to claim that evolution is about the origin of life, then you must explain how that is possible. It's not. You are just misinformed.

Normally when somebody tries to debunk something, they use facts and data that conflicts with it and are at least a little familiar with the opposing viewpoint. You are not familiar with it in the least, and have presented absolutely nothing to suggest evolution is wrong. If you enjoy living with your head buried in the sand, I won't bother you, just stop preaching about it, while talking completely out of your backside. Do a little research on the topic. Anything else is intellectually dishonest.
edit on 31-10-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or just trolling.


Now its no longer a theory its a "phenomenon".

Do you really not understand the difference between a theory and a fact, and how the same word can be used as shorthand for either? I even provided you with another example in my previous post: gravity. We observe the phenomenon of gravity constantly, ergo gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity is built upon the facts we can observe regarding gravity as a means of explaining what we observe. Whether someone means the theory or the phenomenon explained by the theory can be determined by the context of the conversation, though it helps if people are specific about which they mean.


If you say so. It is the ultimate question in "context" with the phenomenal, scientific theory of Evolution.

It's not what I say, it's how evolution itself is defined. In simple terms, evolution is a change in allele frequency within a given population over time. Nothing to do with the origin of life. That's the realm of abiogenesis, which is really a hypothesis at this point.


Which you just side stepped .

No sidestepping involved -- it's a different field of inquiry. You may as well say that the theory of gravity is somehow incomplete because it doesn't explain the origins of life...


Without lifes origins there is only the theory of evolution, which is why its still a theory.

You say "still a theory" as if it will magically become something else once a certain level of knowledge is gained. This suggests that you still don't understand what a scientific theory is. Scientific theories are never complete, they never become something else after accumulating "enough" evidence.


I call it adaptation which is proven, but what the hell.

How does your "adaptation" differ from evolution as it's being discussed?



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: GetHyped


Evolution is both a scientific fact (the empirical evidence, for example, the observations of speciation) and a scientific theory.


You just said theories are facts, again. You go right on deluding yourself. Thats true belief. Something the scientific and religious world do so well.


do you also have a hard time differentiating between a square and a rectangle? since a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isnt a square? same principle.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation

And you are hoodwinked.

"Well established"… status quo, right.

"Explanation"… someones told you, right.

When you add "scientific" to theory you think that makes it scientific fact? Riiight.

Well it must be proven because its quote "scientific".

And it must be false because the scientists don't concur. Riiight.

What you are describing is exactly what the religious people say. Religion is "well established" , they have explanations, they believe their dogma is all fact, too.

So what?

Neither side fools me. Close mindedness voids discovery.

So far, having all the answers is historically disproven. Every time they increase the range of instruments they will change their theories and proclaim the new truth as though they always somehow knew it all along.

edit on 31-10-2014 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Barcs

"Well established"… status quo, right.


If the status quo is reality then yes, the theory is well established.


"Explanation"… someones told you, right.


The beauty of science is that it's true whether or not you choose to believe it and regardless of who "told" you. Anyone can repeat the experiments and get the same data for themselves. Unlike, say, religion.


When you add "scientific" to theory you think that makes it scientific fact? Riiight.


How are you STILL not getting what a scientific theory and scientific fact are?


Well it must be proven because its quote "scientific".


Nothing is ever proven in science. However, something can have such an overwhelming amount of evidence that for all functional purposes it's "proven" (evolution for example). And no, it's not "proven" because it's "scientific", it's "proven" because countless, independently verified observations consistently match up with the model.


And it must be false because the scientists don't concur. Riiight.


Something is false if it is contradicted by reality. For example, creationism.


What you are describing is exactly what the religious people say. Religion is "well established" , they have explanations, they believe their dogma is all fact, too.


What you are saying is you still haven't even got half a clue what you're talking about.


Neither side fools me. Close mindedness voids discovery.


I beg to differ that you aren't fooled but your closed mindedness is apparent even when presented with evidence that refutes your ill concieve arguments, you STILL repeat the same misunderstandings over and over.


So far, having all the answers is historically disproven.


You have this silly habit of making up arguments that you wished other people have made so you can refute them and claim hollow victory. Show but ONE example of anyone in this thread claiming that we have "all the answers".


Every time they increase the range of instruments they will change their theories and proclaim the new truth as though they always somehow knew it all along.


Not surprisingly, you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of objective evidence-based pursuit of knowledge.


“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?”

edit on 31-10-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
"Well established"… status quo, right.

"Explanation"… someones told you, right.

When you add "scientific" to theory you think that makes it scientific fact? Riiight.

Well it must be proven because its quote "scientific".

And it must be false because the scientists don't concur. Riiight.

What you are describing is exactly what the religious people say. Religion is "well established" , they have explanations, they believe their dogma is all fact, too.

So what?

Neither side fools me. Close mindedness voids discovery.

So far, having all the answers is historically disproven. Every time they increase the range of instruments they will change their theories and proclaim the new truth as though they always somehow knew it all along.


Wow. Talk about being deluded. Read the definition I posted. It clearly says that scientific theories are confirmed by repeated experiment and observation. If not, they are not scientific theories. It's not just the word scientific before the word theory. A scientific theory means something different altogether. It does not mean the same thing as a layman's theory. You are using the fallacy of equivocation and misusing scientific terminology. Do a google search on it. Dozens of individual websites will confirm what we are saying. You do understand that words can have numerous meanings right?

Stop perpetuating ignorance. It's not just because someone said it. It's because experiments and studies confirm it. I don't blindly take anybody's word for anything, INCLUDING YOURS. I read research papers and see what the experiments say. You prefer to do zero research and live in fantasy land. Religion is not well established nor is it confirmed by repeated experiment and observation. They are absolutely nothing alike.

It's kind of funny. It's always the people that know the least that are convinced they know more than everyone else and go out of their way to state that. I don't care what you personally believe, but you are wrong about every single thing you've said about science thus far. Stop the war on science. It makes our lives better and it works.

So again, unless you have something valid to add to the conversation you are dragging this way off topic and are being dishonest about it. Anybody can say anything. It only becomes valid when experiments are done to confirm, like with evolution. You don't like that. You are religious, despite your lies claiming the opposite. You need to find people that are more gullible because that ain't gonna fly here. I highly recommend going to the religious forums and trying there, because we aren't buying what you're selling.

I just hope and pray that you are not who I think you are. I wouldn't be surprised at all if you go off on a tangent about target food after this.

edit on 31-10-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


"Well established"… status quo, right.

This mental slip of your speaks volumes. Go back and re-read the post from Barcs that you quoted. He said "well-substantiated", i.e. there is voluminous evidence to support it. He never said "well established".


"Explanation"… someones told you, right.

Anyone can read the work and come to their own conclusions. Scientists publish their experiments, the methodologies, the results for their peers to examine on their own. You're welcome to try and come up with your own explanation for the facts that are presented. What you're not entitled to are your own facts.


When you add "scientific" to theory you think that makes it scientific fact? Riiight.

If you really don't understand the difference between a fact and a scientific theory, then I don't know what else I can tell you. It's been explained several times in this thread. Scientific theories seek to provide an explanation of the facts.


So far, having all the answers is historically disproven.

Since when did science claim to have all the answers? If anything, every time we find the answer to one question, more new questions arise. Science has no endpoint.


Every time they increase the range of instruments they will change their theories and proclaim the new truth as though they always somehow knew it all along.

I think you're confused between completely overturning a theory, like good old phlogiston theory which was overturned in favor of reduction-oxidation theory, with modifying a theory to be more robust based on new evidence, like we do with evolution.

Are there any other scientific theories you have this much of an issue with, or do you just take issue with the theory of evolution?



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Tangerine


If you don't think that evolution is based on testable evidence, I can't help you.

You should have said the "theory" of evolution is "based on" testable evidence. Little more accurate? What you said left out the theory part.


I refer you to a good college level science course or the library.

Yes, books. Other peoples knowledge school. You believe Evolution because others told you? They weren't there when life "appeared" either.


My guess is that you've been duped into thinking it's not based on testable evidence by bogus pseudo-science organizations such as the Institute for Creation Science.

I'll keep saying it, the "science" part of the Bible was written by People that were clueless about science back then. Written by ignorant men. So is your theory of Evolution.

Geez are we that stigmatized? Life adapts to changing conditions quite readily. Evolution claims that means life evolved meaning thats how all life "began". Thats the ruse. Saying "life evolved" doesn't explain how life began. Thats why "evolution" is just another theory like all the rest. Go ahead, ask your library how life began. There is no "testable evidence" for that.

You can't cite me a paragraph that explains the "theory", you just say, 'go look it up'.

The only evidence is evidence of adaptation and extinction, not origins. And that is what makes "evolution" just a theory like all the other scientific theories proposed by those that claim to know. You just believe them because they told you so. Thats a lot like religious people, they just claim to believe the "higher ups". too.

They study their "word" too.


Ah, that's the problem! You don't know what is meant by evolution. You're simply spewing Institute for Creation Research pseudo-science garbage. I've yet to meet a creationist who knew what scientists mean by evolution.



new topics




 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join