Evolution, It's only a theory

Originally posted by jfj123
Don't worry

Since there's no such thing as a creation scientist, they don't need the money

The symmetry is so perfect, it makes you believe a higher power had something to do with the funding

Google the words "Creation Science" and read everything you can find on the first ten websites, then come back and prove that you read them with your updated OS and HD(the ones in your head), and I might believe a paucity of what you say.

Originally posted by Aermacchi

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, buy 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 4-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

Word.

.

Originally posted by andre18

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.

No in fact, Evolutionist like to obfuscate the vernacular of science to enable such idiotic equivocations like micro to mean macro because as you know, if you can attache a proven and observed theory with one not yet technically feasible to observe much less prove,, then the people have to accept one with the other or face ridicule for being against science or worse yet,, a "fundie"!


Darwin couldn't decide what meaning the word "species" meant from day to day. Then we have the merging of words and cute little anecdotes that I suppose are meant to "put us in our place" like using terms for spaghetti monsters and the usual teen talking tools people like me used to extort their lunch money out of.

Just as an example of the kind or moronic tools authoring this crap we really need to look at it closely to see how pathetically ignorant some of the authors they have used to impress us,,

depress us with more oxymoronic statements like this:

we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.

When was the last time YOU called anything a fact you admitted knowing very little about yet still called it a fact.

You would have these lawyers saying I know he is guilty your honor, albeit it true we have little understanding for the reasons why but we know he did it for a FACT!

hehe evolutionists crack me up

[edit on 4-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by jrod
We "evolutionist" are not attacking your beliefs, it is your side attacking us for using reason.

That's absurd people don't start threads like this for any other purpose than to generate rivalry. Look at the OP. It's clearly meant to confront, belittle and demean Creationists.

Creationists have a duty to defend their positions when confronted with the blind faith preachers of evolution.

ALL of the exact same evidence fits much better, and much more reasonably, into the creation model.

reply to post by Joecroft


Well a scientific fact as in the dictionary meaning is basically conclusive observable data and in the scientific sense it’s the same thing, it’s just that it’s the least important part of a scientific explanation because –

A fact is actually the most trivial construct in science, it's an observation. We say sometimes it's a confirmed observation but if somebody else doesn't confirm it which is often the case, it's really just a reported observation …. And people sometimes think its weird wow a fact can be wrong, that it's not a fact, well that's right facts can be wrong - they're just pieces of data. A hypothesis is more complex, it's a proposition about how something works in the world that you generally propose after you have some hard evidence after you have gathered some facts and you wont to propose something to explain it or to explain something else related to it.

Originally posted by detroitslim

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.

No no, you are missing my point completely!

I'm saying quit claiming it is FACT. I'm not saying anything about Creationism or anything else. I'm saying if there are things that aren't proven, if there are underlying questions, if there are lots of unknowns, you can't call it FACT.

I'm not saying Creationism is fact. I haven't claimed ANYTHING about creationism.

I believe in Creationism, but I wouldn't try to claim it as fact to someone who doesn't believe it, that would just scare them away. Even if I "believe" it's a fact, I can't prove it.


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

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by Joecroft

 

Well a scientific fact as in the dictionary meaning is basically conclusive observable data and in the scientific sense it’s the same thing, it’s just that it’s the least important part of a scientific explanation because –

A fact is actually the most trivial construct in science, it's an observation. We say sometimes it's a confirmed observation but if somebody else doesn't confirm it which is often the case, it's really just a reported observation …. And people sometimes think its weird wow a fact can be wrong, that it's not a fact, well that's right facts can be wrong - they're just pieces of data. A hypothesis is more complex, it's a proposition about how something works in the world that you generally propose after you have some hard evidence after you have gathered some facts and you wont to propose something to explain it or to explain something else related to it.

Facts can't be wrong! That's why they are facts!

You can't say something is a fact and then go back and say "Well, the new research we've done requires us to change our stance a little, but it was still a fact"

Wrong.

Fact is fact. Simple.

No matter how science redefines it.

If a scientist explains to you in a very convincing way that an Orange is really an Apple, does it make it an Apple?

According to you, yes.


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

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by jrod
We "evolutionist" are not attacking your beliefs, it is your side attacking us for using reason.

That's absurd

people don't start threads like this for any other purpose than to generate rivalry. Look at the OP. It's clearly meant to confront, belittle and demean Creationists.

Creationists have a duty to defend their positions when confronted with the blind faith preachers of evolution.

ALL of the exact same evidence fits much better, and much more reasonably, into the creation model.

"Blind Faith Preachers".....really?!?

'ring, ring'.....'ring, ring'....."Hello pot?.....this is Kettle. You won't BELIEVE what I just read on ATS!!!!!!"

reply to post by B.A.C.


Are you sure your not a creationist? lol (j/k)

The entire ATSers on this thread, seem to think you are.

Maybe your evolving into a Creationist, ever consider that possibility. lol



- JC

[edit on 4-3-2009 by Joecroft]

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by Joecroft

 

Well a scientific fact as in the dictionary meaning is basically conclusive observable data and in the scientific sense it’s the same thing, it’s just that it’s the least important part of a scientific explanation because –

A fact is actually the most trivial construct in science, it's an observation. We say sometimes it's a confirmed observation but if somebody else doesn't confirm it which is often the case, it's really just a reported observation …. And people sometimes think its weird wow a fact can be wrong, that it's not a fact, well that's right facts can be wrong - they're just pieces of data. A hypothesis is more complex, it's a proposition about how something works in the world that you generally propose after you have some hard evidence after you have gathered some facts and you wont to propose something to explain it or to explain something else related to it.

Facts are the least important thing to science?

Do you know how absurd that sounds?

Even to other evolutionists this must sound completely absurd.

Originally posted by Joecroft
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

Are you sure your not a creationist? lol

(j/k)

The entire ATSers on this thread, seem to think you are.

Maybe your evolving into a Creationist, ever consider that possibility. lol



- JC

[edit on 4-3-2009 by Joecroft]

Yes, I am obviously a Creationist. Although I can't present it as fact, and wouldn't try to. Until I could prove it without a doubt.

I can respect theories though, just don't present them as fact and I'll shut up.

I can't bring up any evidence of it at the moment, but my dad was explaining to me a while ago that humans have only had blue eyes for about eight thousand years, and that before then, everyone's eyes were brown. That sounds an awful lot like an evolution to me. And then there's the fact that primates aren't able to digest milk after about two years old, yet we are, which means we must've evolved to do such a thing. Evolution isn't always a huge thing that happens, and I'm sure there's more of these seemingly trivial things that have been happening over the last ten thousand years or so, but they are evolution. I believe that we evolved from something else.

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by Joecroft

 

Well a scientific fact as in the dictionary meaning is basically conclusive observable data and in the scientific sense it’s the same thing, it’s just that it’s the least important part of a scientific explanation because –

A fact is actually the most trivial construct in science, it's an observation. We say sometimes it's a confirmed observation but if somebody else doesn't confirm it which is often the case, it's really just a reported observation …. And people sometimes think its weird wow a fact can be wrong, that it's not a fact, well that's right facts can be wrong - they're just pieces of data. A hypothesis is more complex, it's a proposition about how something works in the world that you generally propose after you have some hard evidence after you have gathered some facts and you wont to propose something to explain it or to explain something else related to it.

Ok, let me get this straight…

So essentially, in science facts are observations and are much further down the scale in connection with scientific explanations. So facts in science still have the exact same meaning as in the dictionary definition.

It’s seems to me that when science says evolution is a fact they are talking about the observations of evolution i.e. the observation of the development of species over time, being a fact. They are not stating that the “theory of evolution” to explain those facts (scientific), is an actual complete fact, in dictionary definition terms.

Right?…



I think I mentioned this in my first post but we haven’t been able to observe all of the observations regarding evolution, so you could argue we don’t have all of the complete scientific observational facts! to go on. Although how much we have to go on, in percentages, is very debatable.




- JC

reply to post by B.A.C.


BA, Andre is correct.....'facts' are simply the beginning in a series of 'verifibly repeatable' observations.

Some other poster on a thread used the anolgy of the table, the vase, and the cat. Short version, no observation, see broken vase, blame the cat....and the point was there might have been another explanation besides 'the cat done it!'.

Well, it was a clever analogy to deflect the actual scientific process.

Observations, repeatable....discovery, verifiable....not 'circumstantial'....

Hmmmm....'circumstantial' is really the bailiwick of the 'creationist' argument, isn't it?

Consider: We are here, 'therefore' something created us, as we currently are!

THAT is circumstantial, and 'faith-based' to the extreme.

(ignore any other evidence to the contrary....defeat and defend your core beleifs to the extreme....that is your MANTRA!!!)

reply to post by B.A.C.

Yes, I am obviously a Creationist. Although I can't present it as fact, and wouldn't try to. Until I could prove it without a doubt.

I'm not a creationist myself although I did read "Darwins black box" once...

I respect what your saying B.A.C.

Starred..



- JC

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Joecroft]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

BA, Andre is correct.....'facts' are simply the beginning in a series of 'verifibly repeatable' observations.

Some other poster on a thread used the anolgy of the table, the vase, and the cat. Short version, no observation, see broken vase, blame the cat....and the point was there might have been another explanation besides 'the cat done it!'.

Well, it was a clever analogy to deflect the actual scientific process.

Observations, repeatable....discovery, verifiable....not 'circumstantial'....

Hmmmm....'circumstantial' is really the bailiwick of the 'creationist' argument, isn't it?

Consider: We are here, 'therefore' something created us, as we currently are!

THAT is circumstantial, and 'faith-based' to the extreme.

(ignore any other evidence to the contrary....defeat and defend your core beleifs to the extreme....that is your MANTRA!!!)

Now you are talking about how we got here?

That's Abiogenesis in science. A separate thread I "created" hehe www.abovetopsecret.com... . Not related to evolution (according to science), yet evolutionist will bring that up in the argument (kinda funny).

Maybe you claim to come from monkeys, and I won't comment on that fact (it's tempting though).

I've chosen to believe in something else, but I would never deny proof of anything in defense of my faith (that would make me a liar by my own choice, though I have lied and am perfect by no means).

I guess it boils down to two sides and some in the middle.





[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by Joecroft
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

Yes, I am obviously a Creationist. Although I can't present it as fact, and wouldn't try to. Until I could prove it without a doubt.

I'm not a creationist myself although I did read "Darwins black box once"...

I respect what your saying B.A.C.

Starred..



- JC

Thanks! I also respect what you have said, even if we don't always agree.

Originally posted by Aermacchi

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.

I'm sorry you're having trouble with this concept.
What I meant is that there is a large amount of factual, scientific data that supports the theory of evolution. Examples of this large amount of factual data have been posted throughout this thread which you obviously have not read or you wouldn't have made this comment in the first place.

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.

OK disprove the theory of evolution.
Go ahead, we're waiting.
What time and day will you post this ground breaking information?
It's put up or shut up time.
Are you posting to troll or do you have evidence?
If you don't post evidence by default, we'll just assume you're trolling.

reply to post by Joecroft

It’s seems to me that when science says evolution is a fact they are talking about the observations of evolution i.e. the observation of the development of species over time, being a fact. They are not stating that the “theory of evolution” to explain those facts (scientific), is an actual complete fact, in dictionary definition terms.

Right?…

That’s probably the best explanation I’ve read so far

I’m not a scientist lol, so I can only piece together what I understand from all this as well. But from what I do understand (I said it best in my op) “a scientific theory is a set of observed related events based upon accumulated evidence: laws, hypothesis, proven facts of other scientific theories and then agreed upon and reviewed by multiple scientists until there is a scientific consensus for such to become a theory”. and don’t forget -

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.

Scientists will always explain that (as said by even a school science teacher) “in science a theory holds more weight then just a fact does.”

“we should regard all scientific explanations as being tentative and that includes the theory of evolution” tentative - not fully worked out, science does not claim to be.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by andre18]

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by jfj123
Don't worry

Since there's no such thing as a creation scientist, they don't need the money

The symmetry is so perfect, it makes you believe a higher power had something to do with the funding

Google the words "Creation Science" and read everything you can find on the first ten websites, then come back and prove that you read them with your updated OS and HD(the ones in your head), and I might believe a paucity of what you say.

You can also look up the phrase "military intelligence" doesn't mean it really exists

I can even look up the words ogre, dragon, fairy, halfling, etc... and read about them also

There's also the creationist museum that believes dinosaurs were on noah's ark? They claim they're creationist scientists, so does that automatically mean they really are? And dinosaurs were on the ark? Do YOU believe that? They CLAIM they're something called creation scientists after all