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.

 

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
www.shoutwire.com...

Just a link to a good read. It discounts most of the Creationist crap. I think it is part 13 that goes on about the "Well where's the fossil between those two" show it "Where's the fossil between those two" show it "Well where's the fossil between those two" show it "Where's the fossil between those two" show it "Well where's the fossil between those two" show it "Where's the fossil between those two" show it"Well where's the fossil between those two" show it "Where's the fossil between those two"

Uh we haven't found it yet

"Then Evolution is wrong! Burn this building and everyone in it!!!!!"




posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   

www.shoutwire.com...

So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

?
That is precisely what a theory is. If it was recognized as 'absolutely true', then it'd be considered a fact. A theory is something that seems to be correct, but might very well be utterly wrong.


The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time.

This is not what is normally meant by the factual nature of evolution. Indeed, the Theory is that organisms share common descent and have been modified through time. But here the page is saying that that theory has been graduated into 'fact'??



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
?
That is precisely what a theory is. If it was recognized as 'absolutely true', then it'd be considered a fact. A theory is something that seems to be correct, but might very well be utterly wrong.


Not true. The word theory has several meanings, one of which being:


A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.


Therefore, the usage of the word theory in the term "Theory of Evolution" is a sound one.


This is not what is normally meant by the factual nature of evolution. Indeed, the Theory is that organisms share common descent and have been modified through time. But here the page is saying that that theory has been graduated into 'fact'??


The Theory hasn't been graduated. The Theory was factual all along. The issue at hand is the misinterpretation of the word theory. When most people see "Theory of Evolution", they often attribute the wrong meaning of the word to it and believe it is a "best guess" and not a "collection of facts".

[edit on 21/7/2006 by Thousand]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Any theory can be potentially refuted. I seriously doubt that the theory of evolution is going to be refuted, it is strongly supported by the evidence and seems to be the best explanation that we have.


But that doesn't mean that its irrefutable, like a fact would be.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Any theory can be potentially refuted. I seriously doubt that the theory of evolution is going to be refuted, it is strongly supported by the evidence and seems to be the best explanation that we have.


But that doesn't mean that its irrefutable, like a fact would be.


and very few things are facts

so now we're back to where we started



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Do you refute Gravity Nygdan? Gravity is a THEORY! So, if Gravity and Evolution are both wrong for being theories I would like to see you jump off the Empire State Building.

Oh what, you're hypocritical when it comes to theories? You believe 100% in the Theory of Gravity but not the Theory of Evolution?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

That is precisely what a theory is. If it was recognized as 'absolutely true', then it'd be considered a fact. A theory is something that seems to be correct, but might very well be utterly wrong.



That is not true in the slightest. It is clear that you have little understanding of the concept of a theory, so allow me to shed sime light on the subject for you.

Like evolution, graity is generally a widely accepted theory. In science, there is no such thing as "fact." Also, like evolution, not everything is known about gravity. In fact, it would be accurate to say that we have roughly equal knowlege of both gravity and evolution.

Because gravity is "just a theory," would you be willing to discount it and jump off of a building?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rev Paine


Like evolution, graity is generally a widely accepted theory. In science, there is no such thing as "fact." Also, like evolution, not everything is known about gravity. In fact, it would be accurate to say that we have roughly equal knowlege of both gravity and evolution.

Because gravity is "just a theory," would you be willing to discount it and jump off of a building?


You'd know not to jump of that building based on [creationist] Newton's Laws of Motion. Of course most folks know that as emperical FACT (you WILL fall = FACT not theory... we even got formulas to tell you how fast we'll go.) Which theory of gravity are you talking about? Does it tell me I will fall or why I fall? What's it got to do with common ancestry or gradualism? Don't worry, nobody ever has the answer. Dang theocrats.... blimey!

FYI you'll never get your point across with Nygdan... he's not all that bright when it comes to science. You know how those creationists can be, and he's the worst!




posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rev Paine

Originally posted by Nygdan

That is precisely what a theory is. If it was recognized as 'absolutely true', then it'd be considered a fact. A theory is something that seems to be correct, but might very well be utterly wrong.



That is not true in the slightest. It is clear that you have little understanding of the concept of a theory, so allow me to shed sime light on the subject for you.

Like evolution, graity is generally a widely accepted theory. In science, there is no such thing as "fact." Also, like evolution, not everything is known about gravity. In fact, it would be accurate to say that we have roughly equal knowlege of both gravity and evolution.

Because gravity is "just a theory," would you be willing to discount it and jump off of a building?


[sarcasm]Well... it looks like Nygdans finally met his match. [/sarcasm]

Sheesh.... where in the heck do these people come from.




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
I just wanted to bump this old thread.

It seems that some need to brush up on the evolution.

This is how the theory is explained. A little was mentioned above but i'm going to paste the rest of this.



1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.




edit on 21-4-2014 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join