It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


proof against evolution

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:05 AM

Originally posted by AshleyD

Please pardon the off topic post but it is a major pet peeve of mine to see my name in threads where I wasn't participating.

Anyone want to start a pool to see how long until BigWhammy and Ashley D show up?


They just did that because they had to get their reinforcements so Mel shows up.. Whooo I was skeeered!!

Hey Mel! That e-coli turn into an ape yet or is it still being force fed citrate?


- Con

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:09 AM
reply to post by Pro-genetic

just so you all know, in the hebraic (jewish, christian, and yes islamic) account of creation - there was an old earth then a new earth... the old earth was made BILLIONS of years ago - then Elohim destroyed the earth, and created it again (roughly 6 or 7 thousand years ago).

the problem is in the KJV (and its offspring) translators got the original hebrew text wrong..

Genesis 1:1 reads: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The word “created” was translated from the Hebrew word BARA, meaning to bring into existence, i.e., God created the world and the universe from literally nothing, from an absolutely empty vacuum. This is confirmed by Colossians 1:15-18 which reads, in part: “For by him were all things created...And he is before all things...” (cf. Hebrews 11:3; Psalms 8:3; 90:2; 95:5; 102:25; Isaiah 40:12, 22, 26, 28; 45:12, 18; 48:13.)

Genesis 1:2 reads: “And the earth was without form, and void...” According to the Hebrew, a more correct translation would read, “And the earth became waste and empty.” This is based on the fact that the Hebrew word HAYAH was translated “was” in this instance, but elsewhere was translated either “became, came, came to pass, become, or come to pass” 769 times throughout the Tenak (Old Testament), and it should have been translated “became” in Genesis 1:2 also. As further confirmation, Strong’s Hebrew-Greek Dictionary defines HAYAH as meaning “become, be, come to pass, be accomplished, do, and cause,” with the very critical stipulation that it MUST always be in an emphatic sense denoting ACTION, and can never serve as a mere linking verb of a passive nature.

This very important dictionary stipulation clearly dispels arguments by critics who say that grammatical considerations dictate, in this instance, that a passive verb can be used, anyway, when translating the Hebrew word HAYAH in this passage. But, the Hebrew dictionary states very emphatically that the word HAYAH must always be translated as an action verb, and never as a passive linking verb. Accordingly, this theologically-neutral definition absolutely precludes the possibility that the word “was” is the correct translation. Likewise, the phrase, “without form, and void,” comes from the Hebrew words TOHUW VA BOHUW, and should have been translated as “waste and empty.” Therefore, Genesis 1:2 should read, “And the earth became waste and empty,” meaning that a perfect and beautiful world was made desolate and barren.

guess a per-adamite (you and me) society could involve as many catastrophic earth shattering species killing events as one can find evidence for... it also could be billions of years old... it also could adhere to the "scientific" fossil records as we know them... there could have been a cave-man (after all, the Tenak states that HaSatan had a throne and ruled somewhere - if G-d rules in heaven, i guess HaSatan must rule somewhere else... earth maybe??)...

someone brought up the point of common ancestry - not even the most ignorant of creationists will deny that one... adam and eve lol...

regardless, i wasn't spoonfed religion - i came to it with a supernatural vision - not G-d himself, but something... go ahead, call me a loon - but you are the very same people that say aliens exist, people can have special healing powers, there is a large conspiracy and an elite few control the world... so is my revalation any crazier than this stuff??

Evolution? the Berit Chadasha (New Testament) has an answer for that written 2000 years ago (way before all you darwinists)

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

sounds like a biblical warning against evolution to me...

whosoever will...

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Cyprus

1. There is plenty of evidence supporting it and several case studies of animals, genetics, simple population and ecological studies.

And by next month they will all be retractions in the back of NG magazine as BUNK

Simple every animal is a transitional animal, a gradual change. A dinosaur didn't one day lay an egg and have a seagull pop out. Sometimes due to dramatic changes in a variety of natural stresses you can get variation rather quickly. Sometimes a lack in changes, such as certain areas of the oceans allows for some species to find an ecological niche and the family of species to survive, though perhaps not in large quantities.

I don't see any budding appendages on any fossils that would indicate such changes took place and the more vestigal crap I read about the more retractions or Scientists imagination is being passed off as fact.

That ain't Science, it is "Make believe"

There will always be a missing link, several of them infact.

no,, ALL of them are missing.

- Con

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:18 AM

Originally posted by HypnoAsp
He is fooling with us !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's half the problem with creationists, it can be hard to tell the real thing from a parody. But some are too obvious.

Indeed, to maintain my faith in the human race I try to kid myself that every creationist I come across is actually just a parody troll.

It's sort of my own form of wishful-thinking.


See? There's no point responding to these sort of tedious canards. Either accept he's a Poe and laugh, or just write them off as a lost cause.

Problem, of course, is that these people actually do exist and do want to ruin science and science education in their religious reason-free fervour. Luckily, I only come across them on the net. I've never actually met a creationist in real-life (to my knowledge), but I did want to go see a creationist talking-head when he gave a talk near to my home town.

Just wanted to see one in the flesh, bit like I've always wanted to see a bearded lady. Because when they can come up with this sort of stuff...

Morris theorized in his book The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972) that the craters of the moon were caused by a cosmic battle between the forces of Satan and the armies of the archangel Michael. really is a wacky sideshow.


Originally posted by da con
where da rat to bat, mel?

Hey, how's it swinging? Was having some good discussions today with people who study religion from a psychological POV. Heard some interesting findings...

[edit on 2-7-2008 by melatonin]

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:36 AM

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

clearly you don't understand the concept of fossilization...

The Concept? HA HA ,, ok mad give me your conceptualized version sans the lies and speculation. You know,, the part I don't get.

statements like this are made to show that you actively disagree with a concept that you don't truly understand.

Oh you got that right madnesss, whats more is NO ONE UNDERSTANDS IT. It changes its ideas everytime it gets close to being totally debunked.
punctuated equilibrium is an excuse to invent a model to explain away the argument for the fossil record and again the whole premise is based on 100% speculation.

but it's a science. the same process that gave us the technology we're using to discuss the issue is the process being used to further our understanding of evolution, so it's kind of ironic that you'd question one without the other.

Oh Don't even think evolution comes anywhere close to the Science of Chemistry, Physics, Computers, you are insulting prestigious real Science suggesting that garbage Darwin came up with is Science. We woujldn't mis out on a damn thing is Evolution were not taught in schools and what is Ironic is all the creature comforts and technology you list that I enjoy,, not one of them comes from the Science you have riding the coat tails of those other great Science contributions.

The only thing Darwin had any influence on that would shape the world

is Hitler

- Con

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:39 AM

Its funny how you submit your very own understanding to the beliefs of archaic intelligent fools(this is not for the poster). "Its because of (enter any name here[ism) " When will some of you guys begin to think for yourself. To understand how we 'manifested' you must understand the most smallest of details dealing with higher physics and yadayadayada... As long as new things/materia are being born into the universe, something else will change/develop to fufill the maintenance of the balance. We evolved[have grown] to fufill the needs of the universe. We were created by an absence and presence. In sense everything and nothing created us as it did our planet(this is what the ancients refer to as (the creator or cosmic order )[its been dumbed down to a humanly title, God and Lord, when you put some of the higher religion text and higher science text it doesnt make since anymore ('let there be light'], and we were created in everything image and likeness in everyway.

(my evidence-we are and will be the first development of the universe to have the ability to perceive EVERYTHING that has to do with the universe(its like holding a two sided semi-clear mirror but the side that produces the image of the reflection, is opposite in every way(macro to micro) ultimately these are the same entities or things ). The computer will be only thing close in comparison[the evidence lies in the fact that the Computer has to be programmed, even before it can grow into realizing its own existince(PI)it takes both Cre-Evo to become aware and to 'manifest' purpose(computers and humans).
anyway....please try to stay with me.

The mind is what 'they' are reffering to(image). The mind has its own code of time, math, and interconnectedness with the universe. How? Because we are identical in ever way.

light and matter are being born into the universe everyday. So let their be light isnt that far off when speaking HUMAN, but science sounds more soothing too others. The real question people should ponder on is how did any presence develop into a way that they were enabled to see the first time (of all corners of earth not just moses), there is the evidence of our mirroring uni-inter-multi-dimensional ancestory.
Thanks for reading

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:02 AM
bacteria and organism evolve because they have to to survive. but sharks have evolved... they have gotten smaller because of the lower amount of living things in the ocean. even if evolution is right, SOMETHING had to make what it started from.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Conspiriology
The only thing Darwin had any influence on that would shape the world

is Hitler

Wow is that a tired old chestnut. coincidences abound yet again.

If it were true and it were a simple matter of evolution vs christianity the vatican would not have formally endorsed hitler's power (I can already hear hypocritical "but that doesnt count because is was political", "they weren't real chistians" etc. protests).

Does anyone want to talk about that fact or only focus the non existent darwin/nazi angle? It does not matter how much you guys repeat the athiest/buddhist = nazi/commie slurs.. it will never make it true.

For the record I doubt the OP is genuine.

fixed typos.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by riley]

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:06 AM
It is interesting to see the "Theory" of evolution passed off as a "Fact" of evolution when none exists. Evolution is a theory and the religion of humanistic science. They use all the same words as used in any religion, we believe, we feel, we presume / assume etc. The statement that it is a fact is false, thus it is only a theory and one with more holes in it than swiss cheese.

The first and most obvious problem is time. There simply is not enough time to account for it. Those that claim the earth is only 6000 years old need to understand the Hebrew told time via patriarchs and not by a Julian or Gregorian calendar. So having thousands of years more than the stated 6000 by Bishop Usher is accounted for even in their system. Now this brings us back to the time problem. Lets take a look at a simple problem for evolution.

Time is the ultimate argument of those who attempt to "explain" the origin of the Cosmos and all life by CHANCE and the natural properties of matter and energy. Evolutionists hope that by invoking immense amounts of time, highly improbable events can somehow be made probable. But with this type of argument it is possible to "explain" ANYTHING.

We've all heard it said, for example, that "given enough monkeys and enough typewriters, EVENTUALLY one of them is bound to type the sonnets of Shakespeare error free." But this outrageous myth violates the statistical foundation on which all modern science rests. Statistically controlled experiments are useless if we do not assume that highly improbable events simply do not occur.

The probability of any event which has a known number of possible outcomes can be calculated quite easily. The probability of rolling a particular number on a die, for example, is one chance out of six (the total number of possible sides) or 1/6. The probability of getting TWO particular numbers on two successive rolls of the die is 1/6 x 1/6 or 1/36, which is to say you would expect to succeed once in 36 rolls. What then is the probability of randomly selecting the appropriate letters and spaces from a Scrabble set to spell "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION"? There are 26 different letters and a space in the alphabet (total 27) and there is a total of 23 of these letters and spaces in our sentence. The probability of spelling this sentence without error by blindly drawing and replacing letters from our 27 character set is calculated by multiplying 1/27 x 1/27 x 1/27 .... 23 times. The answer reveals that we would expect to spell this simple sentence correctly by CHANCE approximately ONCE IN 8 HUNDRED MILLION, TRILLION, TRILLION draws!! If we drew and replaced letters at the rate of a billion a second we would expect to succeed once in 26 THOUSAND, TRILLION YEARS!

Now the simplest living organism is so vastly more complex than our simple sentence, that we have no way of really calculating its probability. If, however, we consider just one one particular protein of average size (say 500 amino acids) from among the thousands of proteins in a living organism, we can easily calculate the probability of forming it by CHANCE. Proteins are made of a tightly linked chain of amino acids. There are only 20 different amino acids used in the proteins of ALL living organisms and they are arranged in a linear sequence much like the letters of a long paragraph. Assuming an inexhaustible supply of each of the 20 different amino acids, the probability calculation would be 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 ... 500 times. The number of possible combinations of the amino acids in this protein is 1 with over 600 zeros after it! Even if we were to begin with the proper mixture of 500 amino acids to make our particular protein, we could never get the correct sequence for them by CHANCE. Even if the entire universe were packed tight with computers the size of electrons, each trying a billion combinations of our 500 amino acids a second, we could sample only an infinitesimally small fraction of all of the possible combinations in 300 billion years! Even if every medium sized protein molecule that ever existed on earth were ALL DIFFERENT, our vast "fleet" of busy computers could not be expected to come up with the combination of amino acids in ANY ONE OF THEM in a mere 300 billion years!

What all this means is that if the whole of evolution were reduced to the question of the probability of forming ANY ONE biologically useful protein of average size, we could safely conclude that evolution would be a VIRTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY by reason of the fact that there would be INSUFFICIENT TIME AND MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE!

Random chance is a statistical nightmare that evolution can not get past.

Dr. Ernst Mayer once said:

"It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the birds feather) could be improved by random mutations" (E. Mayer, _Systematics and the Origin of Species_. N.Y. Columbia: University Press, 1942, p. 296).

Evolution can not explain eyes let alone how we came to have eyes in the first place.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:20 AM
i find it hard to get my head around either scenerio. you either have to believe life started from nothing under certain circumstances, or we were a creation of another race or god, which begs the infinate questions who created them.

there are theories about how life started, which if true should beable to be recreated easily inorder to prove it once and for all. surely we can replicate the circumstances life started under, and put it into pratice.

on the other hand if we were created then the next question would be who created them? untill you came back full circle to a point where you'd soon realise life at some point had to start from nothing somewhere in the universe.

however if your talking about creatures having the ability to evolve, whats to say if we were created that the creator did'nt make evolving a part of every creatures make up.

if the arguement is about how we came about then all you need to find out is how life started, which should be able to be recreated in a lab if it is properly understood and should beable to be recreated.

if the arguement is about wether creatures evolving proves creation by others or god cannot be true, it dos'nt. not if the creator created life which was capable of changing and evolving to fit its enviorment which is how humans eventually came about.

we all like to think we know the answers, but no matter how you look at it the answers are unknown, we only have theories, but that dos'nt mean they are right unless they can be properly demonstrated.

but either way evolution dos'nt mean life was not created by others or god.
even if only the most basic lifeform was created from which everything stems, life would still be a creation rather than coming about from nothing under freak circumstances.

and i don't believe in god, but i cannot assume i know there is'nt one, i simply don't know, but if there is, how do you get your head around god always being around. surely everything comes about somehow.

its the same with the bigbang theory, if the universe was created from the bigbang, then what created the big bang? and what created the stuff that must of been there to create a bigbang in the first place? etc etc etc etc.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by lifeform]

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:22 AM

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Entropy rules our universe, it is obvious everywhere, the slow decay of everything, evolution would break this rule if it were true

Entropy and evolution are different. Entropy is an assumption based on observation of closed systems. I like many others believe the theory of entropy is flawed. wherever you find life entropy is reversed. This is also an observation which is conveniently ignored.

So thank you for pointing out that entropy is flawed since it only applies to non organic lifeless systems. Where there is life entropy reverses and life you do believe in evolution after all. Well done there is hope for you yet.

But if you really don't believe in evolution then you will be perfectly safe from bacteria and viruses with existing drugs and will never need to depend on any new drugs based on tackling evolving pathogens.....will you!!!

You know I despair at times. The US's rejection of science is astonishing for a country that purports to be a world leader. Why are there so many relgiously blinded people? Why is the backward thinking that this creates equivelent to many middle eastern islamic fundamentalist countries. You know the very ones we hope will wake up one day.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:29 AM
I urge everyone here to watch the series by a genetic biologist on YouTube which explians in detail how evolution works, how DNA can form, how an eye can be evolved step by step.

Highly recommended.

Oh and it blows Kent Hovind out of the water (he was in a bit too deep, bless his little cotton socks. I bet he's having some fun in JAIL - fraudulent scumbag)

The thing about evolutionists, is that they can accept progress. Not one of them would say that they know the whole truth and there is more to find out. They would accept proof to the contrary belief, but none has come.

The thing about creationists, is that they have one completely un-proovable concept which they take as truth and don't want to further our collective knowledge.

One of them is trying to find the truth, the other is being lazy.

I know which side I'm on, I want our species to GET A MOVE ON. Not be stuck in the dark ages - where many people still are.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:56 AM
to fully appreciate wether life came about naturally or wether it was creation, going right back to the begining is key. how it all started.

there are two scenerios and both are bizarre.

one day there was nothing from which everything came.


there is something which has always exsisted, it had no begining and has no end, from which everything came or was created.

these types of scenerios go right through the list of things we want to know.
we live in a society where we are taught nothing exsists forever or has ever exsisted forever even the universe had a starting point and some predict an end, we are taught also that things cannot come from nothing.

but the fact is one or the other has to be the case. no matter how far back to the begining you go, there was a point where one or the other is true.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:21 AM
Look, you bibleists are not getting a few things. First, evolution is not a straight line from one primitive species to some advanced species. There is no "best" fish or mouse or homonid. When one species evolves it does not necessarily eliminate the species from which evolved. Because of this, it is not too surprising that the coelacanth has survived unchanged for a very long time. Infact, the coelacanth is not the only example of this, alligators too have remained relatively unchanged since the time of the dinosaurs.

The second idea I would like to impart on you is that the belief in evolution in no way negates your belief in God. Evolution is a natural process like the water cycle, the nitrogen cycle of decay, tectonic movements, or the moons role in tidal formation. The bible mentions none of these processes however few people would say belief in these natural processes negates your faith. Infact, I believe that denial of evolution may be a denial of the true genius of Gods grand design. Imagine a self sustaining system where you could create only the building blocks for life and from those building blocks are formed literally millions of species. Wait, you don't have to imagine it, you just have to go outside and open your eyes and use the greatest gift God gave you, your brain. I will remind you that christian Theodosius Dobzhansky said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Belief in creationism not only denies God's grand design but also the entire bodies of knowledge of biology and medicine. Keep that in mind the next time you go to the doctor.

Lastly, I would like to tell you that I too am a religious person. However, I differ from you in that my true faith in God stems not from a book written thousands of years ago by many different men, but from my knowledge of science. The natural world is full of many, many rules. In science we call these rules 'laws.' The existence of these laws forms the bedrock of my faith. After all, someone had to write them, the laws present in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. did not simply manifest themselves out of thin air. IMHO God himself is, gasp, a scientist (think about that the next time you bash one of us). I think it is a better belief than the one creationists prescribe to, that he is some all powerful wizard who created all the species with the wave of some magical wand. That seems at best a little simplistic and at worst completely naive.

Anyway, hope I did not ruffle any feathers with this post, just open a few eyes.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Eyemagistus
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

The ID/creationist conspiracy theory, is that the very brightest minds spend years studying the most difficult subjects, then devote the rest of their lives only trying to deceive the whole world.

I’m sorry, but great intelligence has nothing to do with being able to understand, employ, or convey the evolutionary theory. All required, is that you’re a tool of moderate intelligence.

Most evolutionists are not trying to deceive the world. Most are trying to deceive themselves. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, they’re all just tools that allow them selves to be manipulated by The System.

And before anyone claims to not be a tool . . .

My definition of a tool is: Some one who does not realize they’re being used

If you’re a tool, you don’t know it. But even after you’ve been identified as a tool by a third party, you are not guaranteed liberation. Once you’ve outlived your usefulness for your original means, you may or may not remain a tool . . . Of course if you realize you’re a tool, you are no longer a tool . . .

Cheers and onward . . .

in science, every failure counts as a negative proof!

Not every failure is negative proof. But surely if there is enough negative evidence you would acknowledge that there is something wrong? It might be the means of the experimentation or the hypothesis/theory itself.

Each one of the hundreds of failed experiments by Thomas Edison and his assistants in attempting to make a light bulb, only proved that light bulbs are a myth. Only the last one showed that it might be possible.
Therefore, there is overwhelming documented proof that light bulbs are a myth!

The myth that you can create a light bulb by imparting happy thoughts into a clay jar filled with vinegar is still a myth . . . it’s not proof against a light bulb.

The only thing you helped add evidence to here is that science is a faith based practice. If Edison did not believe that he could create an alternate source of light, he never would have.

In over 6,000 years, no one has ever found the skeletons, much less fossils, of a race of giants. One would expect something so unusual and of such great reverence to at least have been preserved.

Wait, this sounds familiar . . .

“With over 6 billion years for one to transpire, no transitional fossil has been found today. Based on the alleged theory of evolution, one would expect there’d be plenty of them.”

First off, just because you haven’t heard about something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The German government could have all the dead giants that thor slew in a bunker somewhere. There’s no way you could know that.

Second, ever considered the possibility that the Nephilim mentioned in the bible are Neanderthals? It would make sense. The Nephilim were supposed to be of superior intelligence (Neanderthals have much larger heads, which makes you wonder) Also, based on bone density tests . . . any healthy Neanderthal would have been inhumanly strong. Pun intended.

Third, the word giant can be interpreted a few ways. It can be attributed to peoples of great intelligence, strength, wealth or anything else . . .

“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”
-Sir Isaac Newton

Don’t go searching for tall people that Newton stood on the shoulders of anytime soon . . .

Only when someone can produce the authentic bones of these alleged "Nephilim" giants that have no earthly origin, will there be any possible credibility for the Biblical creation myth.

Your bold statement holds very little water in lieu of my inferences.

[edit on 7/2/2008 by JPhish]

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 06:16 AM
Theory Theory Theory

Why do creationists always bring this up???

Do some research my friends please.

This is a quick google

Definitions of scientific theory on the Web:

An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. ...

A body of knowledge using controlled-variable experimental methods to construct a formal and mathematically structured system. ...

A well-tested explanation for a wide range of observations or experimental results
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

Evolution, like gravity, is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY ... this is profoundly different from from the meaning of "theory" which creationists refer to.

The use of the word THEORY in the phrase SCIENTIFIC THEORY does not question it's validity, but only implies that it is incomplete.

Science has never claimed to know every thing about evolution and therefore it must be classed as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY ... just like gravity

Oh yeah ... con ... why don't you and Bob have a look at this ...

We found that, in two decades, C. afra had diverged into genetically distinct, phe-
notypically different northern and southern populations

Still no reference to this in "Answers in Genesis"

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 06:28 AM
And while you are at it guys ...

have a look at this:

Snakes evolve to defend against the Cane toad

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Horza

Theory Theory Theory

Why do creationists always bring this up???

Because it's a theory?

Do some research my friends please.

Constantly doing that . . . but mind you, "brilliance is not an aptitude obtainable through study" . . .

This is a quick google

More proof that the ability to quote material does not entail the comprehension of it . . .

Evolution, like gravity, is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY ...

Swing and a Miss . . . Strike one!

Gravity exists and functions by laws regardless of our understanding of it.

Gravity is not a scientific theory. It is the word attributed to the phenomenon which causes all forms of mass to be attracted to each other. The means by which this phenomenon operates are theoretical.

There are many species; this is also not a theory. Species is a word used for animals which are so different they cannot procreate together. The explanations for why we have different species are theoretical.

Can you guess what one of these explanations are???

(rhetorical question delay)


this is profoundly different from from the meaning of "theory" which creationists refer to.

really? Because i was pretty sure that i knew what a theory was . . . i now know for certain that my conception of the word is congruent with reality because you were kind enough to post its definition. . . . thanks~sarcasm

The use of the word THEORY in the phrase SCIENTIFIC THEORY does not question it's validity, but only implies that it is incomplete.

Swing and a Miss . . . Strike Two!
The word theory does just that. To dub something a theory, implies that there is a possibility it is false. If a theory was not capable of being invalid, it would be a law . . . Yes it implies it is incomplete, it is incomplete because you can still question its validity . . .

Science has never claimed to know every thing about evolution and therefore it must be classed as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY ... just like gravity

Foul Ball . . . Strike Two!

Oh yeah ... con ... why don't you and Bob have a look at this ...

We found that, in two decades, C. afra had diverged into genetically distinct, phe-
notypically different northern and southern populations

I wasn’t invited but I took a gander anyways. This is environmental adaptation. That thing that we’ve known of for almost 200 yrs now . . .

You didn’t really swing here, but it was a strike . . .
Strike three! You’re Out!

[edit on 7/2/2008 by JPhish]

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 08:23 AM

Originally posted by JPhish

really? Because i was pretty sure that i knew what a theory was . . . i now know for certain that my conception of the word is congruent with reality because you were kind enough to post its definition. . . . thanks~sarcasm

Yes you know what theory means ... it means this:

theory Show phonetics
noun [C or U]
a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas which are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation:

Now to define what we are talking about.

Scientific Theory:

A scientific theory is this:

Definitions of scientific theory on the Web:

An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. ...

A body of knowledge using controlled-variable experimental methods to construct a formal and mathematically structured system. ...

A well-tested explanation for a wide range of observations or experimental results
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

I have now posted this twice.

Why did you ignore these very real, correct and valid definitions of the phrase "scientific theory"?

Why do you purposefully use "theory" out of context when it comes to evolution?

Evolution is a scientific theory. Which is very different from a theory

Creationism and I.D. are theories because they cannot be tested scientifically. They are faith based philosophies.

We found that, in two decades, C. afra had diverged into genetically distinct, phe-
notypically different northern and southern populations

I wasn’t invited but I took a gander anyways. This is environmental adaptation. That thing that we’ve been convinced of for almost 200 yrs now . . .

You didn’t really swing here, but it was a strike
Strike three! You’re Out!

[edit on 7/2/2008 by JPhish]

You are just being semantic here.

Environmental adaptation is one of the determining factors in evolution.

In 1859 the English naturalist Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species. The book contained two major arguments:
First, Darwin presented a wealth of evidence of evolution. He said that all living things on earth today are the descendants — with modifications — of earlier species.

Second, he proposed a mechanism — natural selection — to explain how evolution takes place.

Evolution involves two interrelated phenomena:

Over the course of time, species modify their phenotypes in ways that permit them to succeed in their environment.

This page is devoted to looking at how evolution leads to adaptation.

Over the course of time, the number of species multiplies; that is, a single species can give rise to two or more descendant species. In fact, Darwin maintained that all species are related; that is, any two species on earth today have shared a common ancestor at some point in their history.

Please explain how a species adapting genetically to their environment is not evolution?

And yes the different types of gravity are referred to as "the or a theory of gravity"

Cambridge university

You will see that lot of these search results refer to it as just that. ... Is Cambridge University a valid enough source for you?

You see ... Scientific theory is a phrase that is used to describe:

an explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs.

Not an opinion that has the possibility of being false.

Not a philosophy that is based on faith

Not an idea that has not been tested.

We know that evolution occurs.

And I play cricket.

[edit on 2/7/08 by Horza]

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 08:54 AM
And to continue JPhish ...

We have established that gravity is referred to as a theory.

Your argument:

Using the word theory in reference to the phenomena of evolution implies that evolution lacks validity.

This would then imply that you think that there are question marks surrounding the validity of gravity.

Would you like to rephrase?

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in