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.

 

Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 31
65
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Evolutionists claim "all known scientific evidence supports evolution”


No there are exceptions which are still being investigated by scientific means, rather than just giving up and resorting to having a belief in the opposite



Evolutionists claim "“virtually every reputable scientist in the world, agrees with evolution.”


Wrong, Im an evolutionist and know for a fact that not every scientist believes in evolution. I work for the Australian Met Bureau, and the head of our department is a staunh creationist.....that was a very ignorant comment (from both perspectives)


[edit on 4/3/2009 by OzWeatherman]


I didn't say "every" scientist. I said "virtually every" scientist.




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I cut the list short so I could put it all on one post, that was about half of it.

OK so that brings to list to 160 more or less.
Again, how many people are FOR evolution so we can compare lists? I mean you're using this list as validity for your argument. For it to be valid, you must have a comparison list.


My contention is that it isn't fact, that there needs to be research before people can call it fact.

Quit calling it a fact.

And what did I say about that awhile ago????
I said I won't call it fact anymore, I will call it a Scientific Theory and I defined scientific theory. Happy now?


It's crazy to try to hold on to the "evolution is a fact" thing, when it isn't.

It makes you sound worse than any "fanatical creationist".

really?
You mean I sound worse then the creationist who believe the earth is only 10,000 years old?
Or the ones that don't believe dinosaurs ever existed?
Or the ones that DO believe dinosaurs existed but since the earth is only 10,000 years old, the dinosaurs were on Noah's ark?
Or the ones who claim there are no transitional fossils?
I could go on and on.
And you think I sound crazier then that?
Dino's on noah's ark????? SERIOUSLY !!!
COME ON !
Or the ones that claim all the worlds animals were on noah's ark. AN IMPOSSIBILITY !!!!


I haven't heard ANY creationist on this thread say creationism is fact. I've heard them possibly say the facts fit better with creationism, but they stop there.

Even so, since they say the facts "fit better", they refuse to post those better fitting facts which make their statements dubious at best.



[edit on 4-3-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Just because a theory has some facts in it, doesn't make it a fact as a whole.


Just because a book says that everything was created by a god, does not make it true.


I agree. And I wouldn't try to prove it was fact either.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by jfj123
One thing I find VERY amusing is that certain people want evolution to not be real. Let's say, for arguments sake the evolution is completely wrong. SO what? It doesn't prove the existence of god. So now you still need to prove god is real. Remember you keep demanding proof that evolution is real so by your own logic you must now demand proof that god is real
GOOD LUCK
If you find proof of god, you'll be on top of the world my friends
)


I don't want evolution to be real or not real.

If i told you God is a fact, I'd sound just as crazy as you do. I couldn't do that because I can't prove it. Regardless of my beliefs, I wouldn't try to cram it down your throat as fact.

Or I'd sound like you.


[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

The difference is that evolution is supported by mountains of factual material and your faith is supported by your faith



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
And what did I say about that awhile ago????
I said I won't call it fact anymore, I will call it a Scientific Theory and I defined scientific theory. Happy now?


Yes I'm happy now. I didn't see your earlier post sorry.

That was easy, see.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by jfj123
And what did I say about that awhile ago????
I said I won't call it fact anymore, I will call it a Scientific Theory and I defined scientific theory. Happy now?


Yes I'm happy now. I didn't see your earlier post sorry.

That was easy, see.


Absolutely. I have no problem at all stating that evolution is a Scientific Theory


Again for the record, I'm not an atheist. This seems to be assumed over and over by a number of posters.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by jfj123
One thing I find VERY amusing is that certain people want evolution to not be real. Let's say, for arguments sake the evolution is completely wrong. SO what? It doesn't prove the existence of god. So now you still need to prove god is real. Remember you keep demanding proof that evolution is real so by your own logic you must now demand proof that god is real
GOOD LUCK
If you find proof of god, you'll be on top of the world my friends
)


I don't want evolution to be real or not real.

If i told you God is a fact, I'd sound just as crazy as you do. I couldn't do that because I can't prove it. Regardless of my beliefs, I wouldn't try to cram it down your throat as fact.

Or I'd sound like you.


[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

The difference is that evolution is supported by mountains of factual material and your faith is supported by your faith


You assume WAY too much.

Maybe I believe God created us and the animals, etc and then let evolution take over from there.

But I'm not sure about that, so I won't say I am.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
You assume WAY too much.

Maybe I believe God created us and the animals, etc and then let evolution take over from there.

But I'm not sure about that, so I won't say I am.


Thats called theistic evolution and is an accepted scenario within certain religious factions. Its not my point of view but I do acknowledge it

Its really the literalists and fundamentalists that are the ones that have the problem with any factor (even if small) with evolution.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


You said –


Explain how I'm wrong… PROVE… nothing I've shown discredits evolution. What I did show and prove is evolution has been and continues to be built off lies!


In your first post on page 25 your main points were rants on how there’s ‘ZERO transitional evidence’ and that ‘proof of Evolution has been proven to be horrible fakes, hoaxes’

I then responded to your post with the evidence of Human evolution and then owned you on page 28 about the apparent hoaxes. I then went to the trouble of responding to your second post where you replied to ExistenceUnknown on transitional fossils – where on page 30 I pointed out yet again transitional fossils do exist with all the evidence there.

I have explained how you are wrong, I have proven nothing you showed discredits evolution. “What I did show and prove is evolution has been and continues to be built off lies” no you haven’t. I have proven you wrong each and every time.

B.A.C. keeps telling me you burned this thread…….yeah, coz you’ve owned me so well


[edit on 4-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bignick
Technological advancement is the evidence of evolution.


Yeah? what is the mechanism for that kind of evolution? Natural selection? Mutation? Nope. it may evolve in fitting one of the many equivocations for the meaning of evolution but in the context of the OP it is anything BUT evolution. I would be more accurate to call it "intelligent designed" technologies



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by Joecroft
 


I don't think any of you are getting it - Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

www.talkorigins.org...


There are readers …. who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.
We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some ....point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out, means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.


Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.

Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor).

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....


[edit on 3-3-2009 by andre18]


Hey there andre18...

I just want to say once again what an excellent thread this is.


Thanks for your reply...

...but...which part of my first post on this thread, did you disagree with? (page 25 lol
)



- JC



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Yeah it was when you said –


Is the scientific “theory of evolution” a fact?
This is a difficult question to answer, I would say that evolution i.e. life that has developed over a long period of time, is a fact, but that the scientific theory to explain that fact (how it works), is not a proven fact in itself or is not complete i.e. it does not explain everything regarding life.


It is a proven fact - check out my reply to B.A.C. (my last post on page 28) I did a transcription of the second video in my op where scientist explain the different meanings facts have in science compared to the general publics understanding.


Because theories explain laws, so in general the hierarchy of explanation is very different in science then it is in the general public. The general public puts facts on top, laws next, hypothesis and then theories ….. In science on the other hand theories are the most important thing, laws are the next most important, hypothesis are the next most important and perhaps the least most important part of the scientific explanation is facts - because facts are a dime a dozen.


- forget this post even existed LOL

[edit on 4-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
No wait LOL. You’re right “or is not complete i.e. it does not explain everything regarding life.” That’s true it doesn’t. my mistake. I apologies for the confusion. I didn't read your post properly, sry.


[edit on 4-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

ALL these scientists have signed their name to this statement.

"WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF
CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY
OF RANDOM MUTATION
AND NATURAL SELECTION
TO ACCOUNT FOR THE
COMPLEXITY OF LIFE.
CAREFUL EXAMINATION
OF THE EVIDENCE FOR
DARWINIAN THEORY
SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.”




You know what's funny about using point this to supposedly "attack" evolution?

This statement is calling for the scientific establishment to keep doing exactly what it is supposed to do - examining evidence and revising their conclusions as the evidence warrants.

And notice also that nowhere in that statement is any support for a creationist or intelligent design position. Nor does their skepticism invalidate the generally accepted principles of evolutionary theory.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

The difference is that evolution is supported by mountains of factual material and your faith is supported by your faith


Again one of the many unproven mantras of evolutionists, is this silly regurgitated idea that their exists some "mountain" and that the mountain is piled high with evidence allegedly supporting evolution.

Yet as many of these debates as I have participated in where someone cites Mount Evidence, to date, on the extremely rare occasion they actually KNOW a damn thing about this most elastic set of social constructs, the so called evidence is nothing but the torturously construed alibi's of the followers of this cult called science, trying to cover for last years fraud.

This mountain properly identified, is really a landfill piled high with the relics of haekle and piltdown frauds that are so many and so common now that many money making industries have sprung from montanna to china, manufacturing fakes for the icons of science to be illustrated in public school text books and passed off as proof prima facie.

This then becomes the images of evolutions icons, some lasting as long as 40 years before anyone had finally debunked them as frauds.

This is rarely if ever publicized and when it is, often, it is a small footnote in the back of the original Science magazine.

They are too numerous to name and most evolution supporters looking only for more proofs, never really find out about the ones they used last year in these arguments where the same evidence used today would have us laughing like we did the first time they thought they won an argument.

Side stepping tactics of used by atheist's to turn the thread into an attack on religion or their standard M.O. Ridicule, is so often the best they can muster in a debate about this archaic and idiotic philosophy for living creatures, a superfluous un-necessary addon to the science of Biology.

To Date: No one has proven molecules to man evolution has ever happened and B.A.C. is correct in saying it has NEVER been observed much less proven a Scientific fact but Ill admit it does make for a funny theory when you think about the many postulates as recent as PBS special on Micro Raptor another one of the great aggregation of many attempts to reconcile a dino to bird fossil using the most laughable excuses and machinations to substantiate this pathetic idea of a featherd dino I have ever witnessed. As soon as I saw this show it was so obviously skewed to fit the prejudices and pre-conceived notions of the scientists involved it as just aweful what has happened to science.

Your mountain is a molehill and that is all it has ever been since 1859 Darwin has only been celebrated in so much as he could benefit the Atheist agenda of usurping Science for themselves while discriminating against any other theory that may challenge evolution.

In the meantime they have been able to enjoy using half truths and circular semantics to subjugate an innocent youth, indoctrinating them with this bunk while they blame relgion as the root of not just any evil, but ALL of it throuhg history.

Even that they get so screwed up on their dates times and revisionist histrionics we now have to re-correct and re-investigate such historic events from Christ's existence to the holocaust.

This monopoly enforced by prejudice and hate is why arrogance like we see in the post above mine, assumes creation science is out of the loop or when he says how secure evolution is knowing NOT that anything can challenge it out of practicing it, but that nothing else is allowed too.

The fact is, if Creationist, were to get a level playing field in Science, they would wipe the field with these imbeciles.

They can't afford that and say it would bring us back to the stone age. That is hysterical because that is EXACTLY what evolutionists have done to Science since taking it over and bastardizing it to advance there materialist worldview.

No one spends as much time studying religion as those who claim to detest it. No one seems to blame God for more that is wrong with our society than those who activley disbelieve in one.

No one competes with religion to garner support for their worldview like the philosophy claiming it is not a religion or a philosophy but a science.

Evolution has ridden on the coat tails of real science discoveries in ways that are so insidious that if you reject any part of evolution they will claim you are taking for granted the very technological advancements science has developed while you only criticize evolution they brand you a lable like flat earther or assume you are a "fundie" sky daddy believing "xtian" as they high five each other in an almost orgasmic crecendo of exhiliration, the very thougth of a faith believing person getting a foot in science makes them act like juveniles about to TP the nerd kids house.

Evolution isn't about science, it is about marginalizing God and keeping Christianity at bay. It isn't a coincedence you see so many Atheist's defending it like religious zealots.

It is because they are religious fanatics and Darwinian evolution, is their religion. It isn't a coincedence when ever one disagrees with evolution, they begin blathering about you not "understanding it" as if reading more of that nonsense is going to make you smarter about it.

It is the indoctrination of Atheistic materialist Darwinain dogma that has most Atheist's thinking they have a monopoly on Science, Logic and Reason and so often why they so often piss people off as they shove that crap no self respecting intelligent individual would swallow, down our throats. It is why they are so like the people they ridicule with extreme prejudice in most every thread I have seen such topics debated and argued.

They are, in fact acting just like,,

Fundamentalists











[edit on 5-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
No wait LOL. You’re right “or is not complete i.e. it does not explain everything regarding life.” That’s true it doesn’t. my mistake. I apologies for the confusion. I didn't read your post properly, sry.


LOL

Hey it's cool...

I was about to ask you why you didn't highlight my entire sentence lol and I was trying to find another way to explain it..



I was also about to ask you, which way, you thought, I meant the word "fact" in my original post i.e. either scientifically or the dictionary definition?...Just out of curiousity...


If I did mean the word "fact" to be the dictionary definition, what would be your thoughts on it?...exactly the same or different?




- JC



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Aermacchi, with all due respect.

Have you even READ page one? Guess 'tongue-in-cheek' is lost in translation. OR, the hardest thing to convey in writing? Sarcasm!

As to your claim of 'mountains of evidence'.....I (edit here) hope you truly you didn't actually visualize a mountain, as you read that part.

(sigh)....thus, the inexact nature of the English language, although it DOES continue to evolve (grin).

Perhaps, a better mental image would be 'mounds' of evidence....hundreds of thousands of 'mounds'.....stored in drawers, but not really in 'mounds', but cagtalogued in drawers....in hundreds of laboratories all over the World. Some of the better bits, as in, very complete fossils that won't fit into a drawer, will be constructed in museums to be on display.

Oh, and....I know....a T-Rex skull fossil won't fit into a 'drawer'...again, it's semantic. Warehouses are full of fossils, categorized, itemized and stored for future study.

Ever been to a Natural History Museum of any sort? The Smithsonian? The Museum of London, or New York?

Pfvfft! Why bother? Your mind is already made up.

May I suggest another hobby....go to Egypt, and prove that the Pyramids are only a few thousand years old!!!



[edit on 3/4/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
That's funny because the people I see who most often follow this thought process are religious fanatics.... Ever hear of anyone killing someone in the name of Evolution?


Ever hear of a punk kid killing another kid for his name brand sneakers? That's the result of removing God from the equation and preaching evolution to kids.

Remove God and you get: no moral purpose for existing; no eternal consequences for harming others; no incentive to love one another or show compassion; unbridled selfishness and cruelty; every man doing right in his own eyes; rampant crime and killing without remorse, etc.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
reply to post by John Matrix
 


I have looked at both sides, gone to church and may conscience will not let me believe in the nonsense that many church goers believe. I am not trying to say there is not a great creator, I just know that mainstream religion in America does not preach the truth.


I appreciate what you are saying. I don't go to church and I am not religious. I don't have to be religious to believe in the law of "cause and effect" (the cause being the creator and intelligent designer of the Universe and all life).



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Yeah it was when you said –


Is the scientific “theory of evolution” a fact?
This is a difficult question to answer, I would say that evolution i.e. life that has developed over a long period of time, is a fact, but that the scientific theory to explain that fact (how it works), is not a proven fact in itself or is not complete i.e. it does not explain everything regarding life.


It is a proven fact - check out my reply to B.A.C. (my last post on page 28) I did a transcription of the second video in my op where scientist explain the different meanings facts have in science compared to the general publics understanding.


Because theories explain laws, so in general the hierarchy of explanation is very different in science then it is in the general public. The general public puts facts on top, laws next, hypothesis and then theories ….. In science on the other hand theories are the most important thing, laws are the next most important, hypothesis are the next most important and perhaps the least most important part of the scientific explanation is facts - because facts are a dime a dozen.


- forget this post even existed LOL

[edit on 4-3-2009 by andre18]


So whenever science doesn't like the publics definition of a word they just redefine it to mean something different?

I LOL'd for real at that.

It's not a proven fact, you're delusional.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join