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: 33
65
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

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.

OK defend yourself and prove what you say.
You haven't so far and ignored every other attempt to ask these questions so I don't expect you to now but at least everyone else will see you make baseless statements and refuse to back them up




posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


BAC, I will not qualify your comments on THIS thread....I just suggest you see mine on another.

(once, before I sign off....your comment is out of line....WE, all Humans, are related to simians....but, only exponentially)

IF you ever wish to refer to my, or to anyone else's 'screenname' in a disparaging manner, then it is YOUR problem, not ours.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   

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


BAC, I will not qualify your comments on THIS thread....I just suggest you see mine on another.

(once, before I sign off....your comment is out of line....WE, all Humans, are related to simians....but, only exponentially)

IF you ever wish to refer to my, or to anyone else's 'screenname' in a disparaging manner, then it is YOUR problem, not ours.


I have no problem with your handle, what makes you think that?

I've never commented on that, and never would.

I just said if you want to think you evolved from monkeys, then so be it. I don't.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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.]

I noticed you still haven't posted a comparative list yet.
Surely you'll want to legitimize that list by posting a list of people who's signed a statement that believe in evolution. Without this other list, your list becomes meaningless. Sure approx. 160 have signed it but we don't know about the other list. Maybe only 2 signed the other list or maybe 10,000,000 signed the other list....we just don't know until you post the information. Until then, unfortunately, your list is without merit.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


To sum up

To Believe in Creationism you have to believe in God, without question.

But if you believe in God you can believe in either Creationism or Evolution.

And if you believe in Evolution you can believe in a God or Not believe in a God.


So Evolution can co-exist with Religeon and No Religeon, it is totally
independant to Religeon.

Where as Creationism locks you into a religeon. Which also means you
must follow the Religeon without question and just blindly accept what
the Religeon says is fact.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.]
Let me give you an analogy:
Let's say the police forensics team determines someone was murdered and evidence leads to person A. Later they find that additional evidence no longer leads to person A but now person B. Regardless of the new information, the man is still murdered.
Same with evolution. Some things change slightly but the overall picture is still the same.
Of course you'll say this is a bad analogy or you'll tell me I'm wrong for another reason but you won't provide evidence to support your statement that I'm wrong. We know how this goes



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
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]


So what you're saying is that you believe in creationism with ZERO evidence instead of evolution which is supported by evidence?
Interesting

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.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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.]

I noticed you still haven't posted a comparative list yet.
Surely you'll want to legitimize that list by posting a list of people who's signed a statement that believe in evolution. Without this other list, your list becomes meaningless. Sure approx. 160 have signed it but we don't know about the other list. Maybe only 2 signed the other list or maybe 10,000,000 signed the other list....we just don't know until you post the information. Until then, unfortunately, your list is without merit.


Go back and read one of the previous posts I made concerning this. No need to post another list. I full admit that the MAJORITY of scientists support the theory.

I'd venture to say that millions are on the other list.

Again, I don't have a problem with the theory, I only have a problem with it being presented as absolute fact.

It's like banging my head against a wall. Why do you keep trying to argue with me? I've said it's a good theory, I've said I agree there is evidence to back it up.

I DON'T agree it's fact, thats all. So don't present it as such. I thought we got past this.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by B.A.C.
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]


So what you're saying is that you believe in creationism with ZERO evidence instead of evolution which is supported by evidence?
Interesting

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.


Whoa. Slow down there. Zero evidence? Ever hear of the Divine Proportion?

Anyway, I'm not gonna derail this thread with Creationism because you want to argue. That's for another thread.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Just curious but can any creationist here provide ANY scientific evidence that creationism is correct?
If you can't, you're following a faith.
Why would you prefer to follow a faith with zero evidence to support it when you can believe in evolution which does have evidence to support it.

Also keep in mind the creationism is different then believing in god. Nobody is saying you can't believe in god if you believe in evolution.

Religious people who believe in creationism have replaced evolution with it so there should be scientific evidence to support creationism.
SO WHERE IS IT? WHY HASN'T ANYONE POSTED IT???????



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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]


So what you're saying is that you believe in creationism with ZERO evidence instead of evolution which is supported by evidence?
Interesting

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.


Whoa. Slow down there. Zero evidence? Ever hear of the Divine Proportion?

Anyway, I'm not gonna derail this thread with Creationism because you want to argue. That's for another thread.
Yep zero evidence.
You post a phrase and imply it's evidence yet you post no info about said phrase so YEP, no evidence. ZERO. Zilch. Nada. None.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted 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.]



Let me give you an analogy:
Let's say the police forensics team determines someone was murdered and evidence leads to person A. Later they find that additional evidence no longer leads to person A but now person B. Regardless of the new information, the man is still murdered.
Same with evolution. Some things change slightly but the overall picture is still the same.
Of course you'll say this is a bad analogy or you'll tell me I'm wrong for another reason but you won't provide evidence to support your statement that I'm wrong. We know how this goes


Actually it's a very good analogy, just for my point and not yours


So they don't know if person A or B committed the murder (you never said who committed the murder)?

Can they claim it's a FACT that either committed the murder?


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



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Let me give you an analogy:
Let's say the police forensics team determines someone was murdered and evidence leads to person A. Later they find that additional evidence no longer leads to person A but now person B. Regardless of the new information, the man is still murdered.
Same with evolution. Some things change slightly but the overall picture is still the same.


i can't believe you just proved BACs point!


Someone was murdered? maybe not, see that's your first mistake. Maybe it only appears that the person was murdered. Maybe the person comitted suicide, maybe it was an accident.

You're jumping to point "B" and calling it "A" without addressing the true point "A". You're trying to figure out who killed the guy when you have no proof that he was even murdered! Even if your forensics team finds someone to pin it on and all the evidence matches up, it is still not a fact that that person committed the murder. All that you have is a hypothesis reached by means of grounds and consequence. Circumstantial evidence. Which is why macro-evolutionary theory is not scientific and why it is not a fact.

[edit on 3/5/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 






Originally posted by andre18
“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.


That’s got to be the most sensible thing I have read on this thread so far.


I’m not a scientist lol either but I have read quite a few books on evolution and creationism, mainly just as a hobby lol

I think your thread has highlighted an important topic, in that it is the general publics lack of understanding of certain scientific concepts, which causes problems and misunderstandings.

Strange thing is I actually had the idea of setting up a similar thread on this same topic, about a day before you set this thread up..



Thanks for the interesting discussion…


See you around on the boards…




- JC



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Just curious but can any creationist here provide ANY scientific evidence that creationism is correct?
If you can't, you're following a faith.
Why would you prefer to follow a faith with zero evidence to support it when you can believe in evolution which does have evidence to support it.

Also keep in mind the creationism is different then believing in god. Nobody is saying you can't believe in god if you believe in evolution.

Religious people who believe in creationism have replaced evolution with it so there should be scientific evidence to support creationism.
SO WHERE IS IT? WHY HASN'T ANYONE POSTED IT???????


There is evidence of creationism all over your body. Ever hear of Divine Proportion or the Golden Ratio?

en.wikipedia.org...

But that isn't what this is about. If I created a thread and claimed Creationism was FACT, I'd expect to be jumped on. I can't prove it and would concede to that FACT.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


BAC....the 'Golden Ratio' as it applies to Art....

My goodness, I was taught this back in Art Class in sixth grade!!!

Also, I learned about perspective, in Art....and how to use the so-called 'vanishing point' to help out your perspective drawings.....

The so-called 'Golden Ratio' was used by Sir Arthur C. Clarke (deceased) to describe the monolith in his short story, "The Sentinel", later to be fleshed out into the screenplay for "2001: A Space Odyssey" that was released as a motion picture in 1968.

To envision, for film, they built the 'monolith'....it was one unit thick, by three units wide, by nine units long....if I remember correctly.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Also, IF you wish to consider the 'golden ratio'.....look into the Fibonicia (sorry for poor spelling) series of numbers.....

EDIT to spell...Fibonacci....

An Italiano!!! Moto bene!!!

[edit on 3/5/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


reply to post by Aermacchi
 



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!

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.

Facts are the least important thing to science?

Do you know how absurd that sounds?


Ok so over 30 pages and you still have no clue. Nothing is being redefined, it’s just the significance of theory over fact that is different from what we normally would assume as fact over theory.

In science a theory has more weight then a fact – a fact in science doesn’t mean anything different, it’s just “that in science facts are observations and are much further down the scale in connection with scientific explanations” where as a hypothesis has hard evidence based on facts – facts being the observation (just pieces of data) And then the theory is based on the hypothesis and laws and other scientific theories and then agreed upon and reviewed by many scientists until there is a scientific consensus for it to become a theory.

I explained all this in my op and it’s taken over 30 pages for you to figure it out!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


andre18.....you should be andre19, by now, because you have succeeded
where many have failed!

Excellent thread.....too bad you're under age....oh, wait....now you're legal!!!!

Damn....kidding....of course.....KIDDING!!!!

Jokes....very difficult....dying in a poor joke? Easy!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join