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.

 

"Evolutionists"

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
Evolution is a fairly tale story that happened long ago and far away and yet no matter how much we look it does not happen today, none of it.

In order to make this assertions, one of two things is happening: you are lying to yourself, in which case I feel sorry for you, or you're lying to everyone else, in which case I feel sorry for you.




posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Doing the bump for this post.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Evolution must not be a firmly held dogmatic view of life's origins. If evolutionists become blind to any possibilities then they are no better than the medieval churches who refused to believe that the earth rotated around the sun.


Sadly, thats what it is. The idea that ToE, and only ToE explains the diversity of life is indeed almost dogmatic in nature. Despite several holes in the theory, tons of unanswered questions and several valid points in that other explanation, ToE is regarded as the best explanation and that it has all the answers.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Sadly, thats what it is.

Sadly, you're about to show, again, that your education about the basics of science and how it works is lacking.


The idea that ToE, and only ToE explains the diversity of life is indeed almost dogmatic in nature.

There's no dogma involved - every claim that is made by the theory of evolution has a significant amount of evidence to back it up. If it didn't, it wouldn't yet be part of the theory. If a new mechanism were discovered that helped to explain the diversity of life that had a similar weight of evidence behind it, it would be incorporated into the theory of evolution. Theories incorporate new ideas based on evidence, dogma rejects new ideas regardless of the evidence.


Despite several holes in the theory,

Such as what?


tons of unanswered questions

Such as what?


and several valid points in that other explanation,

You mean the explanation that carries absolutely no evidentiary weight and has yet to produce a single testable claim?


ToE is regarded as the best explanation and that it has all the answers.

Yes, it's the best explanation because it has all of the evidence supporting it. And no scientist claims that the theory of evolution has all of the answers. Then again, neither does the theory of gravity, but you're not taking shots at that theory because it doesn't conflict with your personal religious beliefs.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


reply to post by iterationzero
 



Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Sadly, thats what it is.

Sadly, you're about to show, again, that your education about the basics of science and how it works is lacking.


The ball. Not the player.



skorpion : The idea that ToE, and only ToE explains the diversity of life is indeed almost dogmatic in nature.


iterationzero : There's no dogma involved - every claim that is made by the theory of evolution has a significant amount of evidence to back it up. If it didn't, it wouldn't yet be part of the theory.


On the contrary, ToE suffers from a chronic lack of required evidence. Its hard to maintain ToE as a fact when your fossil records are incomplete and also when its real-time observation is impossible. That in itself makes ToE untestable and unfalsifiable, hardly backed up as a scientifc theory, unlike gravity.

ToE is highly dogmatic in nature because it is held as the ultimate authority when it comes to explaining life, and shuts out all other explanations. Despite the fact that we are discussing events that took place millions of years ago and despite the fact that these events are beyond observation/recreation.




Iterationzero : If a new mechanism were discovered that helped to explain the diversity of life that had a similar weight of evidence behind it, it would be incorporated into the theory of evolution. Theories incorporate new ideas based on evidence, dogma rejects new ideas regardless of the evidence.

Well, dogma can also reject new ideas when it wants to cling on to something simply because an alternate explanation clashes with what it propogates. As was with the case of the church in the dark ages... and now, as is with the case of evolution.



skorpion: tons of unanswered questions, Despite several holes in the theory,


iterationzero: Such as what?

Take for starters, an event such as the cambrian explosion.
There indeed was a sudden diversification of life forms, at some point on earth, where the rate of evolution had somehow sped up by an order of magnitude, causing life forms to go from simple single celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms, complete with eyes, limbs etc.

Was the cambrian explosion observed? No.
Are there fossils to explain it? No.
Can the cambrian explosion be recreated to be observed? No.

Therefore, can any of ToEs explanations of the cambrian explosion be tested and falsified? No.

Even then, proponents of ToE will work under the assumption that Darwin was right, and assume the cambrian riddle can be answered with a hypothesis on as to what may have happened, disregarding the fact that no evidence exists.

Its just the good old "we dont know how, but evolutiondidit" all over again. Sounds like circular reasoning to me. The same thing goes for almost everything else propogated by the ToE.



skorpion : and several valid points in that other explanation,


iterationzero : You mean the explanation that carries absolutely no evidentiary weight and has yet to produce a single testable claim?


Read this first : en.wikipedia.org...]
((Notice that it is an absolutely neutral source and NOT a source from an anti-ToE site. So Im not linking you back to the source of the claim. This can be independently verified.)

All life forms run off a little something thats known as the genetic code, which possesses the traits of any other code. Little wonder why its called the "genetic code" and not anything else (Also note that the genetic code is categorized under "codes" in that wiki link). Even evolutionary scientists recognize that. Our knowledge of codes indicate the involvement of a pre-existing intelligence, so we can legitemately conclude that the genetic code also has its origins in a pre-existing intelligence.

Even evolutionary scientists accept the code nature of the genetic code. Therefore, even if you hold that life "evolved", you would have to recognize that codes, such as the genetic code, could NOT have emerged from an unguided process. You can imagine it did all you want, but it does not change facts.






edit on 7-4-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: grammar



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
The ball. Not the player.

When the player is crying “foul” and doesn’t even seem to know the rules of the game, it’s not the fault of the ball.


On the contrary, ToE suffers from a chronic lack of required evidence. Its hard to maintain ToE as a fact when your fossil records are incomplete …

Scientists acknowledge that the fossil record is incomplete and, fortunately, the fossil record isn’t the only evidence that supports evolution. But keep in mind that the evidence that is available in the fossil record supports the theory of evolution.


… and also when its real-time observation is impossible.

Except it’s not impossible. We have observed and continue to observe instances of evolution.


That in itself makes ToE untestable and unfalsifiable, hardly backed up as a scientifc theory, unlike gravity.

This is easily the most daft thing I’ve read today. Evolution has made countless predictions and if any one of those predictions would have been contradicted by the evidence, it would have been falsified. The theory of evolution proffered a testable hypothesis for why humans would have one less pair of chromosomes than apes, and it was right. Scientists themselves have come up with several ways that evolution could be easily falsified. Yes it hasn’t been yet.


ToE is highly dogmatic in nature because it is held as the ultimate authority when it comes to explaining life, and shuts out all other explanations. Despite the fact that we are discussing events that took place millions of years ago and despite the fact that these events are beyond observation/recreation.

No, science shuts out explanations that have no evidentiary weight behind them. If you want your theory to be treated on the same footing as the theory of evolution, you have to come up with the same amount of evidence. You can’t cry “dogma” because science isn’t “playing fair” – science isn’t a democracy where everyone gets a say, science is a tyranny of evidence. Evolution has it.


Well, dogma can also reject new ideas when it wants to cling on to something simply because an alternate explanation clashes with what it propogates. As was with the case of the church in the dark ages... and now, as is with the case of evolution.

See above.


Take for starters, an event such as the cambrian explosion.
There indeed was a sudden diversification of life forms, at some point on earth, where the rate of evolution had somehow sped up by an order of magnitude, causing life forms to go from simple single celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms, complete with eyes, limbs etc.

Was the cambrian explosion observed? No.
Are there fossils to explain it? No.
Can the cambrian explosion be recreated to be observed? No.

Therefore, can any of ToEs explanations of the cambrian explosion be tested and falsified? No.

Even then, proponents of ToE will work under the assumption that Darwin was right, and assume the cambrian riddle can be answered with a hypothesis on as to what may have happened, disregarding the fact that no evidence exists.

Oh, “Cambrian explosion”… how have you have been repeatedly mischaracterized by creationists? Let me count the ways…

An order of magnitude? And how are you quantifying evolutionary development to be able to determine that it went up by an order of magnitude?

From simple, single-celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms just like that? No. Life started to diversify prior to the Precambrian and we have fossils of multi-cellular organisms prior to the Precambrian.

No falsification based on evidence in the Cambrian? Guess you’ve never heard of Haldane’s “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era” argument for how evolution could be falsified.


Its just the good old "we dont know how, but evolutiondidit" all over again. Sounds like circular reasoning to me. The same thing goes for almost everything else propogated by the ToE.

Yes, because a theory that continues to make testable predictions and continues to go unfalsified, in spite of the best attempts of creationists around the world for the last century and a half, is based on circular reasoning. Right.


Read this first : en.wikipedia.org...]
((Notice that it is an absolutely neutral source and NOT a source from an anti-ToE site. So Im not linking you back to the source of the claim. This can be independently verified.)

All life forms run off a little something thats known as the genetic code, which possesses the traits of any other code. Little wonder why its called the "genetic code" and not anything else (Also note that the genetic code is categorized under "codes" in that wiki link). Even evolutionary scientists recognize that. Our knowledge of codes indicate the involvement of a pre-existing intelligence, so we can legitemately conclude that the genetic code also has its origins in a pre-existing intelligence.

Even evolutionary scientists accept the code nature of the genetic code. Therefore, even if you hold that life "evolved", you would have to recognize that codes, such as the genetic code, could NOT have emerged from an unguided process. You can imagine it did all you want, but it does not change facts.

What a backbreaking exercise in semantic tomfoolery that is… it must have been created because all of the other things we call codes were created? Seriously? Using your logic, all synthesis reactions in chemistry, regardless of whether they’re biological or not, must have been created by a higher intelligence because they “convert” chemical compounds (“pieces of information”) into other chemical compounds.

But this all really OT from the OP and we should take it back to one of the other threads.
edit on 7/4/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





On the contrary, ToE suffers from a chronic lack of required evidence.


Like I and others have told you dozens of times, it wouldn't be classified as a scientific theory if it were lacking evidence. And of course the findings are actively used in modern medicine...if the theory were incorrect, we wouldn't have a lot of the meds we use today...but of course you already know that and just ignore it anyway out of blind ignorant faith. And you keep on repeating your nonsense like a broken cassette player, simply because in your eyes it's against your faith....faith that has ZERO rationality or logic behind you, which makes your claim beyond laughable.


Ignorance at its best...you might wanna look up the mantra of this site


As for the Cambrian explosion...



There indeed was a sudden diversification of life forms, at some point on earth, where the rate of evolution had somehow sped up by an order of magnitude, causing life forms to go from simple single celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms, complete with eyes, limbs etc.


If you kept up with research instead of copy/pasting your ideas from pseudo-scientific creationist "research" (lol) websites, you'd know what utter nonsense your claim is...and how outdated it is as well.



There is little doubt that disparity – that is, the range of different organism "designs" or "ways of life" – rose sharply in the early Cambrian. However, recent research has overthrown the once-popular idea that disparity was exceptionally high throughout the Cambrian, before subsequently decreasing. In fact, disparity remains relatively low throughout the Cambrian, with modern levels of disparity only attained after the early Ordovician radiation.


As for why it was quicker at the beginning, there are several hypothesis that would explain it...and contrary to your "god did it" copout, they have at least some evidence.

- Increase in oxygen levels
- Massive glaciation
- Development explanations
- Ecological explanations

Those are hypothesis because unlike the theory of evolution, they haven't been confirmed. But a lack of knowledge doesn't automatically mean magic (aka god) did it. According to your pseudo-logic, a guy from 1000bc looking up into the sun thinking that "god is making it appear" would be correct. Of course he didn't have the knowledge to make an informed decision, but according to you, he'd be correct. Every time people have attributed something to god, like plagues, they have been proven wrong. The "god did it" explanation track record is beyond awful!



Even then, proponents of ToE will work under the assumption that Darwin was right, and assume the cambrian riddle can be answered with a hypothesis on as to what may have happened, disregarding the fact that no evidence exists.


I hope you realize the theory was further supported by over 150 years (!!!) of research...without ever being debunked. And all of the hypothesis have at least some supporting evidence. Your god of the gaps on the other hand has ZERO




Its just the good old "we dont know how, but evolutiondidit"


The THEORY of evolution isn't a HYPOTHESIS!



Are there fossils to explain it? No.




The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the relatively rapid appearance, over a period of many million years, of most major Phyla around 530 million years ago, as found in the fossil record.




Was the cambrian explosion observed? No.




530 million years ago


Humans hadn't even evolved around then...so your critique that it hasn't been observed is beyond laughable





Can the cambrian explosion be recreated to be observed? No.




The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the relatively rapid appearance, over a period of many million years


Humans (homo sapiens) had only evolved around 200k years ago...and you complain that humans haven't observed a process that took many million years? ARE YOU SERIOUS?? What a dumb question...



Even evolutionary scientists accept the code nature of the genetic code. Therefore, even if you hold that life "evolved", you would have to recognize that codes, such as the genetic code, could NOT have emerged from an unguided process. You can imagine it did all you want, but it does not change facts.


And of course you end it with another "god of the gaps" theory. A lack of knowledge isn't proof of magic



edit on 7-4-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Pretty much every creationist argument ITT is a stawman or just complete lack of understanding of the subjects by creationist. Everyone is going to think you are retarded if you keep incorrectly defining things and then arguing against your definition.



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Bump, because someone started a thread with 'evolutionist' in its title while I was away.



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Wilsonfrisk
 


This point has value


Evolution..... serves very specifically the NWO agenda - by making us all into animals, they give themselves the right to do what they want to us, including mass extermination of entire populations, sterilization, abortion, etc. Their mission is to totally devalue the human being.


Everybody that visits ATS has to give this point at least some thought.

Oh and "Madness" from his posting record is an 'evolutionist' atheist, just like from my posting record I am a 'creationist' theist.
Sorry you dislike the label, but it is what it is.
edit on 11-4-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Everybody that visits ATS has to give this point at least some thought.

They would need to spend the same amount of time mulling over the thought that religion is a tool of the NWO, making the masses far more pliable and easy to control.



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Everybody that visits ATS has to give this point at least some thought.

They would need to spend the same amount of time mulling over the thought that religion is a tool of the NWO, making the masses far more pliable and easy to control.


That may have been true before the internet, I give you that, but so much information is now available to people to see through that aspect. You should know The Georgia Guidestones are in direct conflict with christian principles.
That should be the tip off to you.



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wilsonfrisk
There is no evidence at all, and it serves very specifically the NWO agenda - by making us all into animals, they give themselves the right to do what they want to us, including mass extermination of entire populations, sterilization, abortion, etc. Their mission is to totally devalue the human being as a spiritual being of great import, and make us no different than an animal.

Religion serves very specifically the NWO agendy - by creating an invisible surveillance camera to the sky, that will in the end punish us all, unless we do exactly what we're told. In addition mass extermination of entire populations is justified with religion, as you're told that you're not killing fellow human beings, but animals that worship the wrong deity, "it's ok to do so as your deity wants you to do so, should you do any different you'll be punished in your afterlife.."

Evolution unites us, religion divides us. What is more useful for the NWO agenda? Just apply a little bit of common sense, religious organizations are at the heart of pretty much every NWO conspiracy theory.
edit on 11-4-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


...it's a stupid point. How does the single most revolutionary and applicable biological theory of all time serve the purpose of some global elite conspiracy? It's a theory that feeds, a theory that cures, a theory that helps us understand the world around us.

And stop being a child, there's no such thing as an evolutionist. There's also no such thing as 'germists', 'circuitists', 'gravitists', 'cell-ists', etc. It's a scientifically proven theory. It's a theory, it's a fact, it's a model. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you're too ignorant to accept basic scientific principles, please don't be so ignorant as to not understand basic logical principles.



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




And stop being a child, there's no such thing as an evolutionist.....You've repeatedly demonstrated that you're too ignorant to accept basic scientific principles, please don't be so ignorant as to not understand basic logical principles.


Really?

You know Madness until this response, although we adamantly disagree, I still had a small measure of respect for you what you post as it demonstrated empirical logic and informed knowledge, which I respect. You lose respect when you prove yourself ignorant of nouns and adjectives, and refuse to acknowledge basic dictionary definitions.

Your blatant emotionalism on this topic had blinded you to the point you wouldn't even check the dictionary to see if the word "Evolutionist" exists. Or maybe you did look it up, but are just in denial that word actually exists and describes you. Wouldn't be the first time you disagreed with the dictionary, because of a personal bias.


ev·o·lu·tion·ist    
noun 1. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology. 2. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
–adjective 3. of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists. 4. believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, especially in biology.



a person who believes in a theory of evolution, esp Darwin's theory of the evolution of plant and animal species



of or relating to a theory of evolution



a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution



The above definitions apply to you from your avatar and posting record.
Now who is the ignorant one, again?



edit on 11-4-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: Corrections, as pointed out in next reply.



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
You know Madness until this response, although we adamantly disagree, I still had a small measure of respect for you what you post as it demonstrated empirical logic and informed knowledge, which I respect. You lose respect when you prove yourself ignorant of grammatical words,


I'm sorry, but I'm going to stop you right there. "Grammatical words"? Really? I'm sorry, but I teach English...there's no such thing as a 'grammatical word', grammar is structure. Vocabulary is words. Just saying.



and refuse to acknowledge basic dictionary definitions.


...dictionaries refer to usage, not whether or not the word is stupid. The dictionary has the word in it, so what? What's the justification for having a special term for people who happen to accept one empirically founded scientific theory/fact/model but not a similar term with regards to every other empirically founded scientific fact/theory/model?



Your blatant emotionalism on this topic had blinded you to the point you wouldn't even check the dictionary to see if the word "Evolutionist" exists.


You must be not reading...because I never said that the word doesn't exist, I just said that 'evolutionists' don't exist. It's a stupid word because it's demonstrably stupid. I mean, I pity the poor straw man you just tore down, but I never said that the word doesn't exist. The fact that I can put it in quotation marks and people can understand what I'm referring to means that I acknowledge that it exists....but it's stupid. Why it is stupid is in bold above.



Or maybe you did look it up, but are just in denial that word actually exists and describes you. Wouldn't be the first time you disagreed with the dictionary, because of a personal bias.





ev·o·lu·tion·ist    
noun 1. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology. 2. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
–adjective 3. of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists. 4. believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, especially in biology.



a person who believes in a theory of evolution, esp Darwin's theory of the evolution of plant and animal species



of or relating to a theory of evolution



a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution



The above definitions apply to you from your avatar and posting record.


And yet I am not a 'circuitist' because I happen to use technology that relies heavily on circuit theory. I'm not a 'germist' because I take antibiotics that are founded in germ theory. I'm not a 'tectonicist' because I don't have a problem with the scientific explanation for how the recent earthquake happened either. It's a stupid word. I can keep going on with examples of scientific theories that don't have a corresponding word...which is all of them.

"Evolutionist" is stupid because evolution is scientific fact. It has a theory that explains that fact and is heavily proven and tested. There are predictive models based around it.



Now who is the ignorant one, again?


The person who demonstrates their ignorance...you.
edit on 11/4/11 by madnessinmysoul because: reply to formatting



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





I'm sorry, but I teach English...

And that makes your personal bias against nouns and adjectives found in the dictionary, even more egregious.



I just said that 'evolutionists' don't exist

You stand corrected by the dictionary, not much more I can say on that.




It's a stupid word because it's demonstrably stupid.

So because I don't like a word, we can say that category of people doesn't exist?
Emotionalism and bias about nouns/adjectives reveals something.




It's a stupid word..... "Evolutionist" is stupid because evolution is scientific fact.

It may be a stupid word to you, we get that, but is the opposite - "creationist" an equally stupid word to you?




edit on 11-4-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
The use of the suffix "ist" in english simply denotes a person.
English suffixes

It can be a [person] that has a certain philosophy (creationist) , practice (guitarist), or skill/trade (percussionist/chemist). There is no hard fast rule for it's use and a lot of time depends on context.

I don't like the use of the word "evolutionists" due to the fact that it is generally used by those who hold to a certain philosophy that disagrees with evolutionary theory and is used to denote that disagreement by semantic labeling of proponents of evolutionary theory. They somehow think this puts their faith based belief on equal footing with evolutionary theory. "See . . . Evolution is just a "theory", thus a "belief", so they are "evolutionists". This is usually quite transparent and just another logical fallacy that faith based philosophies use to sway public opinion in their favor.

However . . . grammatically it can be correct. Someone that practices evolutionary biology can be labled an "evolutionist"; however, the correct term should be "evolutionary biologist". Someone that practices evolution could be called an "evolutionist" . . . . Although we usually just call them people, humans, or homo sapien sapiens.

So Madness, while I agree with you on why it is a stupid term, it's really just another failed attempt from the creationists to try and knock 150y of empirical data and accepted fact because they are usually ignorant to what they are actually describing. I say embrace it and when they use the term . . . just know they are describing all life on this planet. Every living thing on this planet is an "evolutionist" . . . because we all practice it every day!!

Cheers!



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





I'm sorry, but I teach English...

And that makes your personal bias against nouns and adjectives found in the dictionary, even more egregious.


Wow, I'm being quote mined! You just cut out the entire part where I explained this. As I already said:


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...dictionaries refer to usage, not whether or not the word is stupid. The dictionary has the word in it, so what? What's the justification for having a special term for people who happen to accept one empirically founded scientific theory/fact/model but not a similar term with regards to every other empirically founded scientific fact/theory/model?






I just said that 'evolutionists' don't exist

You stand corrected by the dictionary, not much more I can say on that.


...you could try addressing what I actually said instead of two truncated sentences and specifically selected short sentences from much longer paragraphs...you didn't really bother to address it, so I'll just say it again:


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...dictionaries refer to usage, not whether or not the word is stupid. The dictionary has the word in it, so what? What's the justification for having a special term for people who happen to accept one empirically founded scientific theory/fact/model but not a similar term with regards to every other empirically founded scientific fact/theory/model?






It's a stupid word because it's demonstrably stupid.

So because I don't like a word, we can say that category of people doesn't exist?
Emotionalism and bias about nouns/adjectives reveals something.


Again:


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...dictionaries refer to usage, not whether or not the word is stupid. The dictionary has the word in it, so what? What's the justification for having a special term for people who happen to accept one empirically founded scientific theory/fact/model but not a similar term with regards to every other empirically founded scientific fact/theory/model?








It's a stupid word..... "Evolutionist" is stupid because evolution is scientific fact.

It may be a stupid word to you, we get that, but is the opposite - "creationist" an equally stupid word to you?


Nope, it's a religious belief. "Trinitarian" isn't a stupid word because it refers to a religious belief and there is an equivalent for the other position on the theological matter. Evolution? Not a religious matter and there isn't an equivalent word.

...and since you really didn't bother actually responding to my post, I guess all I can do is requote myself:


Originally posted by madnessinmysou
And yet I am not a 'circuitist' because I happen to use technology that relies heavily on circuit theory. I'm not a 'germist' because I take antibiotics that are founded in germ theory. I'm not a 'tectonicist' because I don't have a problem with the scientific explanation for how the recent earthquake happened either. It's a stupid word. I can keep going on with examples of scientific theories that don't have a corresponding word...which is all of them.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


At this point a picture would be better than words to describe your absolute emotional stubbornness on this issue.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join