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: 43
65
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bootsnspurs33
reply to post by jfj123
 
It's amazing how quick evolutionist backtrack on other evolutionist,astronomer's claim the big bang as the likley start for the "natural evolutionary process of the universe" without it you wouldn't have the chemical building blocks for biological evolution,just because you can no longer defend it doesn't let you ignore the doctrine,that wasn't even a good try.We (my friends & i) were raised as agnostics,it was the inability of our univ. proffessors (who were very good at teaching the mathmatics of astronomy & astrophysics,mathmatics which eventually proved the existince of dark matter & it's relevance to the measurements of space & time.)to rectify the math with their estimates of the age of the universe,the age of the earth,the establishment of the necessary biological & chemical properties & elements that make evloution viable,it was their math that has led me & others to the knowledge of the creator. When their lies were exposed the truth became obvious.If you knew anything you would know you can't dance around the math,as disingenious as your attempts are they only prove my point.BTW,the infinite universe theory has been dead for years,& string theory is hemoraging massive amounts of it's life blood on the table of mathmatics(again refer to dark matter).Do your own research on the math, since you're an evolutionist & too determined not to give up on your religion i doubt if it will help you as it did us,but it will certainly frustrate & piss you off or leave you babling the same nonsense you have been,either way you're still wrong. You really don't understand the magnitude of the numbers do you?Well cheer up skippy,at least we find your post entertaining.



You obviously made a minimal attempt to read my post before spouting at the mouth. Frankly, you should be embarrassed at the fact that you don't know the difference between the big bang and evolution. You're continued attempts at playing in the big sandbox amuse us
Feel free to let the spouting continue




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
reply to post by jfj123
 


Read the pages I link to, your figures are all wrong and very unreasonable.

christiananswers.net...




Or yours are

Can you find a source that isn't the christian answers page?



What difference would THAT make? The information is out there and I have seen you use links to Darwinists websites also doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered

You act as if these darwinists are at odds with creationists and have an agenda. There is no agenda as a whole.

The difference is that the christian website does have an agenda. The agenda is to try and discredit, evolution. Let me be clear, it's not to REFUTE evolution because they can't, it's to DISCREDIT evolution.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

Quit calling "The Theory of Evolution" a fact, you can't according to your own definition.


I don’t think you’re ever going to get it. I’ve tried to explain all this to you as best I can but it seems I’m never going to get through to you. I feel you’re a waisted effort. Sry.


The theory of evolution is no less factual then other proven theories (ie gravity, etc..)

According to HIM, nothing should be called fact. I'm assuming his endgame is to put a chink in the armour of evolution by getting people to admit it isn't a factual theory.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I think part of the problem is that the word fact is being used both formally and informally just as the word theory has been.

In the end, since this seems to be a strange point of contention, why not do the following:
Call it a Scientific Theory
we can use the following definition to describe the Scientific Theory

When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.


Is this acceptable?
Just trying to help move the discussion passed a word.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


"I agree you have lots of "Scientific Facts" as evidence for "The Theory of Evolution".

So you admit that the Theory of Evolution has a lot of facts in it.

I know that it isn't "Theories" that are fact. I know that "Theories" explain facts."

If theories explain facts, then the Theory of Evolution explains the facts of evolution. If there are facts of evolution then there is no problem teaching evolution as fact. Just because we can't be sure of all the ins and outs of evolution doesn't change the fact that it is fact as you have already admitted in your quotes above.

FYI, it is still called the Theory of Evolution because the exact processes of how it works aren't taught as fact, just as best current explanation. The Theory of Evolution wouldn't exist if it was taught as fact, it would be called
the LAW of Evolution.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by stooge247
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


"I agree you have lots of "Scientific Facts" as evidence for "The Theory of Evolution".

So you admit that the Theory of Evolution has a lot of facts in it.

I know that it isn't "Theories" that are fact. I know that "Theories" explain facts."

If theories explain facts, then the Theory of Evolution explains the facts of evolution. If there are facts of evolution then there is no problem teaching evolution as fact. Just because we can't be sure of all the ins and outs of evolution doesn't change the fact that it is fact as you have already admitted in your quotes above.

FYI, it is still called the Theory of Evolution because the exact processes of how it works aren't taught as fact, just as best current explanation. The Theory of Evolution wouldn't exist if it was taught as fact, it would be called
the LAW of Evolution.


Another one completely missing the point.


Evolution is fact.

The Theory of Evolution is not fact. The Theory gives an explanation of the facts.

Very simple statement.

Why do Evolutionists have such a hard time with that?

[edit on 6-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


I know where you're coming from but you need understand some of the basics of science. Even though we may not know at this very moment how it happened, just because we don't, would not and should not mean evolution is wrong because of that. I doubt and every scientist out there doubts that we'll have complete knowledge of everything about the universe ever. We will never have complete 100% evidence for evolution, but just because we don't doesn't mean it's still not a fact.

There isn't one scientific theory, that has the complete 100% evidence for it. No such theory exists. However scientific theories, as well as the theory of evolution has been tested and observed so much that's there's no longer a need test and observe it to determine how evidant it is for it to be a scientific fact.

en.wikipedia.org...


Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong


[edit on 6-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by stooge247
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


"I agree you have lots of "Scientific Facts" as evidence for "The Theory of Evolution".

So you admit that the Theory of Evolution has a lot of facts in it.

I know that it isn't "Theories" that are fact. I know that "Theories" explain facts."

If theories explain facts, then the Theory of Evolution explains the facts of evolution. If there are facts of evolution then there is no problem teaching evolution as fact. Just because we can't be sure of all the ins and outs of evolution doesn't change the fact that it is fact as you have already admitted in your quotes above.

FYI, it is still called the Theory of Evolution because the exact processes of how it works aren't taught as fact, just as best current explanation. The Theory of Evolution wouldn't exist if it was taught as fact, it would be called
the LAW of Evolution.


Another one completely missing the point.


Evolution is fact.

The Theory of Evolution is not fact.

Very simple statement.

Why do Evolutionists have such a hard time with that?


Sigh, stooge247 just give up with this guy he's never going to get it - or either he does he just doesn't wont to accept it.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Ok simple question - how is evolution a fact but not a scientific fact? We've been over the issue that a fact is just an observation of data, and the theory of evolution has been observed to the extent that it is a fact. So what's your problem?

What would you define as a scientific fact?


[edit on 6-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by atlasastro
 


I know where you're coming from but you need understand some of the basics of science. Even though we may not know at this very moment how it happened, just because we don't, would not and should not mean evolution is wrong because of that. I doubt and every scientist out there doubts that we'll have complete knowledge of everything about the universe ever. We will never have complete 100% evidence for evolution, but just because we don't doesn't mean it's still not a fact.

There isn't one scientific theory, that has the complete 100% evidence for it. No such theory exists. However scientific theories, as well as the theory of evolution has been tested and observed so much that's there's no longer a need test and observe it to determine how evidant it is for it to be a scientific fact.


Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong


Evolution is fact.

It's the why it happens I'm not sure of. It's that simple.

The Theory of Evolution is probably the best currently known Scientific way of explaining the fact of Evolution . I can admit that.

But don't you dare try to tell me a Theory is Fact. I've PROVED it isn't.

Facts = verifiable observations.
Theory = explanation of verifiable observations.

Facts and Theories are completely different things.

All of your arguing is about this little statement "The Theory of Evolution isn't a fact". You know it isn't. I know it isn't.

You've been brainwashed into thinking it is. Theories can never be facts, because you can add more facts to a theory. Therefore they change and are not verifiable observations.

Facts are verifiable observations, the minute they change, they are no longer verifiable and must be concluded to NOT have been fact. That's supposedly the WHOLE beauty of science in a nutshell! Sooner or later if someone falsified a fact, it will be found out (given infinite time).



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al

I have a problem with the Theory of Creationism, because so far I've seen no proof of it being a Theory ,Fact or even a Concept.
But there is Theory that it can't be proved and that's a fact.

Who made God anyway, another God or did it evolve out of the Big bang.
Is this covered in the Big Book of Creationism.


All of the same evidence and all of the same facts are also examined by scientists that believe in creation. I believe the creation model provides a more reasonable explanation for the evidence and facts that exist.

We are finite and God is infinite. We are material beings and God is a Spirit being. We live in a created material realm that is a weak out-birth of God's spiritual realm.

Since God is infinite, he has no creator.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Facts are verifiable observations, the minute they change, they are no longer verifiable and must be concluded to NOT have been fact. That's supposedly the WHOLE beauty of science in a nutshell!


INCORRECT

The minute they change - as in when the new data is added to the already existing data - the fact is still the same fact! only new data collected, is added to that fact!

DO YOU GET IT NOW?




[edit on 6-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

Facts are verifiable observations, the minute they change, they are no longer verifiable and must be concluded to NOT have been fact. That's supposedly the WHOLE beauty of science in a nutshell!


INCORRECT MOFO

The minute they change - as in when the new data is added to the already existing data - the fact is still the same fact! only new data collected, is added to that fact!

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

[edit on 6-3-2009 by andre18]


I get it perfectly, you are having a hard time with it.

Facts don't change. If they do they aren't facts. The fact is still the same fact. You said it.

The theory changes to accomodate that new fact. New facts add to the theory.

New data collected for a fact? What are you talking about? Facts don't change, so how can you add data?

New data for a Theory? Absolutely.

See I understand perfectly.

Say it with me "The Theory of Evolution isn't a fact".

Say all you want. Bring up every piece of evidence you want. It still doesn't change the TRUTH. That's the thing about TRUTH. The TRUTH is that The Theory of Evolution is NOT a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains the FACT of Evolution.

You hate that don't you? LOL

[edit on 6-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


you're correct in principle BAC but facts are relative to time. Although i probably shouldn't get into this because it might further confuse Andre . . .

i'm going to do it anyway!

Let's say it is an accepted fact that
"the earth exists as a spherical object in space"

Let's say we blow up the earth.

Now what was once the earth exists as a bunch of asteroids in space

the earth no longer exists as a spherical object in space.

The fact changed in relation to time.

This is why static truths are hard to come by

Andre, in relation to your last post . . .
The problem is, you're assuming that the original "fact" being amended was indeed a fact in the first place.


[edit on 3/6/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The same evidence and facts that evolutionists use to support their theory can also be used to support the creationists' theory. The creationist view is more rational, logical and reasonable.

I already showed that only a million years ago the earth would have been somewhere between 500 and 1000 km closer to the sun according to the present shrinkage rate of the sun's diameter. This change in distance would have made life unbearable on earth.

Take the eons of time away from an evolutionist and his theory turns to dust.

Since you claim to be a realist, while denying the existence of God, have you studied timewave zero? Science has not been able to refute this theory while mathematicians have in fact confirmed it. Timewave zero correlates to many major historical turning points in our past and also our future, as well as major past and future biblical events. Timewave zero confirms the bible in many ways.

You would do well to pay attention until the day dawns and the Day Star rises in your heart, which will seal your faith and convince you of your redemption.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

The problem is, you're assuming that the original "fact" being amended was indeed a fact in the first place.


Yes that's what i'm assuming - how is that a problem. Facts can be amended. Facts can obviousy we wrong but they can also amended.

It is a fact that evolution is evidant and the theory of evolution explains that fact, so why not accept that the theory of evolution is a fact if it explains the fact of what it is? Why not accept the explination is also a fact?

[edit on 6-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

I know that it isn't "Theories" that are fact. I know that "Theories" explain facts.


Theories are facts because of the amount evidence theories have that support it. Theories are the closest scientific term we have to explain observations in the most strict and most precise manner possible. The german shepherd came about, a hundred years ago. That is a fact of evolution because we can see it happening. We can see the theory of evolution is a fact because we can observe evolution before our very eyes. The theory is a fact because we can see the fact.

It is not a fact however, that all the evidance for evoltution is 100% evidant. Is that the fact of evolution is mean?


Theories are nothing more than stories and speculations about evidence.
Theories are not facts. There are no facts that prove the theory of evolution. Facts only add to the reasonableness of the theory. I believe the creation model is more reasonable.

As I stated earlier, the present rate of mineralization of sea water and especially the levels of salt, does not support the theory that our planet is millions of years old.

Once you realize there are serious earth age inconsistancies with the evolutionist theory, you are forced to think differently.

[edit on 6/3/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by atlasastro
 


I know where you're coming from but you need understand some of the basics of science.
I understand the basics, and more. Please don't tell me what I need to know. The questions I have are specific and relate to the genesis of the fundamental keystones that all ET of life are reliant on. Aspects of Photosynthesis are thought to evolve independantly of each other. Do you know what that means. Think about it Andre. All life has evolved from these early life but they are drawing the lineage from many different types, assuming that they are all direct decendants but willing to accept that componants of photosynthesis in these decendants evolved seperately. Think about that.

Even though we may not know at this very moment how it happened, just because we don't, would not and should not mean evolution is wrong because of that.
Only if you except a theory that is built on observing and then constructing a theory, rather than showing it all or being able to test it. Its not a method. I hope you can see where I am coming from. Look at the flow of evolution relating to these early phototrophs. They "evolve" rather complexly really early, even scientist accept how remarkable they are before the end of the Archean, and become incredibly abundant but for hundreds of mllions of years after they don't do much. Why? And then bam...we get not only masive amount sof life but we get another amazing and unexplained innovation by spliting the tree into plant and animal. Did you notice that question in my original post.
I just don't want to swallow the materialists doctrine ad hoc anymore than you do a bible or ID fantasy.


I doubt and every scientist out there doubts that we'll have complete knowledge of everything about the universe ever. We will never have complete 100% evidence for evolution, but just because we don't doesn't mean it's still not a fact.
I understand that Andre, but what percentage do you think we know. We could be at 10% at the moment, or even 5%. The questions I have are significant if not crucial to having a percentage that questioners of the theory like myself will accept. If you are willing to accept the current knowledge then cool. But don't tell me that I need to.


There isn't one scientific theory, that has the complete 100% evidence for it. No such theory exists. However scientific theories, as well as the theory of evolution has been tested and observed so much that's there's no longer a need test and observe it to determine how evidant it is for it to be a scientific fact.
I understand. Science is flawed. I am not questioning Science. I am question a specific scientific explanation. This is exactly the way science works. Get used to it.



Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong

So point out where they observe the direct evolution of the phototrophic line between thermal oxidizing reductionists and solar phototrophic life forms. They don't.
The more they study Photosynthesis the more complex they realize it is. It harvest nearly 95% of the sun through the most amazing aspect of life without which we wouldn't exist. The process from cyanobacteria to more complex plants is only distanced by the complexity of the plants themselves, and not the process. Think about that, this system evolved early, very, very,very early, we have nothing else that comes close to being this efficient on the planet. Its that important. I want the facts on this one. Not what someone thinks I need to know. Some of these parts are so specific its hard to figure them into ET, the light harvesting mechanisms and the exchange and reaction centres, how these two would have evolved via random mutation independantly is mind blowing and that they are decended from non photosynthesising organisms that grew around hydrothermal vents is even more amazing. Look into it more Andre. Its an important question to have answered. Outside of the original abiogenesis.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



I already showed that only a million years ago the earth would have been somewhere between 500 and 1000 km closer to the sun according to the present shrinkage rate of the sun's diameter. This change in distance would have made life unbearable on earth.


Please watch.




there are no facts that prove the theory of evolution


darwinwasright.homestead.com...


It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity does increase, that both occur naturally only by evolutionary means.

It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance.

It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that multiple independent sets of biological markers exist to trace these lineages backwards over many generations.

It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs the same way humans are a subset of apes, primates, eutherian mammals, and vertebrate deuterostome animals.

It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development.

It is a fact that everything on earth has definite relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record.

It is a fact that the fossil record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even according to it’s strictest definition, and that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed.

Evolution is a fact!


[edit on 6-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
So can we not all come to an agreement yet? Evolution itself is a Fact and is observable. However the Theory of Evolutoin (or Process of evolution) is what is currently being refined and theorized. Does this not please everyone except the staunch creationists?

We DO NOT know all of the process of evolution so questions about how this became this are irrelvant and do not take away from evolution being fact. All it means is that we currently can't explain these processes.

To borrow form previous posts:

Gravity = Fact
Theory of Gravity (or process of how gravity works) = Currently up for debate

[edit on 6-3-2009 by ExistenceUnknown]




top topics



 
65
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join