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: 44
65
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by andre18

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]


It's very simple, because then according to science it is a fact and not a theory.

Facts can't be amended!!!! You only get more separate facts to amend the Theory.

A theory can NEVER be fact.

A fact can NEVER be theory.

Or throw science right out the window, because FACTS can't be proven wrong, but THEORIES can be.




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I see a lot of people mistaking data as fact when it's really only the "interpretation of data" and nothing more. There is evidence, data, and interpretation of evidence and data. The interpretations are colored by the hypothesis of the interpreter and the theory the interpreter wants to support.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
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]


If I could agree more I'd burst.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Since half of all the humans that have ever lived on planet earth for the past 6,000 years are estimated by experts to be alive today, it would be reasonable to assume that we should be able to observe some transmutations of the human species. Think about it. The gene pool is getting shallower. It's breaking down, not developing. Has anyone here ever gone to a small isolated town filled with 3 or 4 generations of inbreds? Scary stuff.


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



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

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


Ixs that what you think? He doesn't know the difference between the Big Bang and evolution? GuFaW!!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA WoW! YOu sure BUSTED HIM! HA HA HA HA HA Gee Out of curiosity, what on earth gives you such a DESPERATE Idea! Is it because he completely DESTROYED you in that post! Could it be that his information makes evolution completely and utterly MOOT! NULL! A NON ISSUE!


HA HA HA Then what really exposes you as "THEE GUY" is how you say he "Spouted off at the mouth BUT YOU!!

HA HA YOU NEVER DO THAT HUH!

Evolution is a fact as far as I get a sun tan or grow old but you claim you are a Christian and where on earth does it say in a Christian Bible God made man both he and she then put us back in the primordial soup. ??

You are Christian like Ken Miller is

NOT!



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

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


asatg, and B.A.C.

NO!!! We are not lost!

Reason....that is the rope, the 'preserver', if you will.

I've seen the 'eye' given as a reason to believe in 'creation'....

Well, as I've noted, MY eyes aren't all that special. They certainly aren't 'perfect'. (but, they're blue and beautiful....)

No! We Humans, as most mammals, eat and breathe through the same hole. It is only, in Humans, when we swallow, that a piece of tissue called the epiglautous (sp?) will cover our trachea so the food is directed toward the esophagus.....and during this act of 'swallowing', of course, we cannot breathe.

Sheesh!!! I just remember high school biology here....certainly I could Google and learn more.....but this, among other facts, should be enough to show a reasoning person that we weren't "designed"!!!

Either you can accept that every aspect of the Human body is related, in some way, to other mammals....or, you just wish to wallow in 'fantasy-based' imaginations of some sort of 'Heavenly Being'.....

YOUR choice!






Did it ever occur to you WHY it is best to NOT take in air along with your food??? Think about it weed THE NEXT TIME YOU'RE FLATULENT.

It's rather ingenius but man is always coming up with reasons HIS idea wouold have been better. Always coming up with God Critics HA HA HA HA



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

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.


Well said. I would like to clarify something. The process that is being refined and theorized is still evidently a fact. We do not have all the complete pieces of the puzzle when it comes to evolution but the pieces we do have is enough to come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is fact. because the evidance we have for it is so well substanciated (even though it's not complete) it can be conclude to be a fact.

en.wikipedia.org...


Commonly "fact" is used to refer to the observable changes in organisms' traits over generations while the word "theory" is reserved for the mechanisms that cause these changes


- and we have so much evidence for the mechanisms/process that cause the changes that we call it a fact because there's so much evidence for it.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Short period comets revolve round the sun once every hundred years or less. With each revolution they lose 1 to 2% of their mass. After several hundred revolutions they disintegrate. At present there are over 100 short period comets in our solar system, many of which have orbit the sun in less than 20 years. Since comets are said to have been created at the same time as the universe came from the big bang, we have to assume that the Universe, comets, sun, moon, earth are all much younger, or, we face accepting the creation of new comets.

This is evidence for a much younger Universe, and it supports the creation model.

The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of approx. 5 % per 100 years. So 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today. If we assume the rate of decay has been constant, then 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times stronger than it is today. This would have caused too much heat to support life. This tells us that the Earth's magnetic field is quite young and therefore the earth itself is young.

The decay of the earth's magnetic field is well documented. A recent NOVA Special brought this point to light rather explicitly. In fact, the decay rate suggests the earth may not even have a magnetic field 1000 years from now.

The Dead Sea receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee from the Jordan River. It continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River and they have calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. They have estimated how long this process has been going on for and assuming a constant rate of salt water flow with zero salt level at the beginning, the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old.

When you take time away from an evolutionist, their theory cannot stand.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
Evolution itself is a Fact and is observable.


This is a false statement. Evolution cannot be observed. No one has ever observed it. Simply looking at a piece of evidence does not constitute observing evolution.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by andre18
Evolution itself is a Fact and is observable.


This is a false statement. Evolution cannot be observed. No one has ever observed it. Simply looking at a piece of evidence does not constitute observing evolution.


uhmm...yes it does constitute observing evolution. evolution has been observed on the galapogos islands, in fact they even put it out on an hour long science channel show. as i remember it, a long beaked bird became extinct because it was unable to survive cracking open a scarse food source contained in a hard shelled seed, only a few short and strong billed birds survived, because they were able to crack open the seed pods. and those short and strong billed birds are what survives today.

hence, observed, documented, factual evolution.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by jimmyx]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

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.


Well said. I would like to clarify something. The process that is being refined and theorized is still evidently a fact. We do not have all the complete pieces of the puzzle when it comes to evolution but the pieces we do have is enough to come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is fact. because the evidance we have for it is so well substanciated (even though it's not complete) it can be conclude to be a fact.

en.wikipedia.org...


Commonly "fact" is used to refer to the observable changes in organisms' traits over generations while the word "theory" is reserved for the mechanisms that cause these changes


- and we have so much evidence for the mechanisms/process that cause the changes that we call it a fact because there's so much evidence for it.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by andre18]



So just because the majority of Atheist/ Scientist's which seem to be the only people "alowed" in Science as anyone disagreeing to evolution or challenging this pile of bull gets black listed. This is nothing but consensus science enforced by coercion, "call it a fact or else! "

You said it Andre and you have been trying to recover by using all kinds of wordsmithing and equivocations ever since.



Scientific facts and scientific theories are two different things. - Andre

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The only reason you want it to be considered a FACT is so people will believe it. You know why the second law of thermodynamics is so easy to prove? How about Gravity? When was the last time we saw an artcle by Scientists claiming another object that went up and came back down?

But HERE you are trying to PROVE evolution!

If you Darwits ever figure out that truth needs no defense you would know why Creationists don't HAVE to prove anything and if people are too ignorant to admit the truth TOO BAD!

In the mean time we will continue to see torturously contrived manufactured evidence and fudged data coming from evolutionists yelling *BLOCK BUSTER*! MISSING LINK FOUND!

Then another year later they find it was only another hoax we can add to the mountain of them YOU still want to believe is evidence and when you look at past evidence of evolution it is so far from being a fact from a fraud it is utterly ridiculous. Their has been so many semantics used in this thread by you and your Darwittian cult followers it astounds the mind.

I admire your passion and courage but for anyone to believe it anymore,,

Frankly, it makes more sense that something like a GOD being is more likely and makes more scientific sense than that fairytale you are pushing.

Darwin,,, pffft just plane

Silly



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
It's time you Evolutionists look at some DNA evidence which demonstrates all races came from a single woman. Initially, in 1989, it was said she existed 100 to 200 thousand years ago, but this was later revised by geneticists when it was discovered that the Mitochondrial mutations changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported. This puts the existance of the source woman from which we all get our DNA at 5 to 10 thousand years ago.

Here are a few links for all to research:

www.trueorigin.org...


www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com...



The gene pool is getting shallower through mutations. Mutations are harmful to us, not beneficial. Inbreeding rapidly makes the gene pool very shallow. Check out small isolated communities for the results.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by andre18
Evolution itself is a Fact and is observable.


This is a false statement. Evolution cannot be observed. No one has ever observed it. Simply looking at a piece of evidence does not constitute observing evolution.


uhmm...yes it does constitute observing evolution. evolution has been observed on the galapogos islands, in fact they even put it out on an hour long science channel show. as i remember it, a long beaked bird became extinct because it was unable to survive cracking open a scarse food source contained in a hard shelled seed, only a few short and strong billed birds survived, because they were able to crack open the seed pods. and those short and strong billed birds are what survives today.

hence, observed, documented, factual evolution.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by jimmyx]




uhmm...yes it does constitute observing evolution. evolution has been observed on the galapogos islands, in fact they even put it out on an hour long science channel show. as i remember it, a long beaked bird became extinct because it was unable to survive cracking open a scarse food source contained in a hard shelled seed, only a few short and strong billed birds survived, because they were able to crack open the seed pods. and those short and strong billed birds are what survives today.


Yeah Darwins finches. BIG DEAL another LOOK I GOT A SUN TAN! I bet if I kept laying out in the sun Ill either die or BECOME ANOTHER SPECIES AND ONE BETTER THAN I AM NOW!

Maybe maybe ,, Ill be BIGGER STRONGER, SMARTER than before!!

Sheesh anyone else get the feeling the Darwins galapogos story is too over rated? Seriously, it ain't that impressive and does not prove macro evolution



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
evolution has been observed on the galapogos islands, in fact they even put it out on an hour long science channel show. as i remember it, a long beaked bird became extinct because it was unable to survive cracking open a scarse food source contained in a hard shelled seed, only a few short and strong billed birds survived, because they were able to crack open the seed pods. and those short and strong billed birds are what survives today.

hence, observed, documented, factual evolution.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by jimmyx]


Wrong! To observe evolution would require one to observe transmutations of species from one form to another. No one has observed that and the fossil records are filled with thousands upon thousands of huge gaps and thus a serious lack of transitional fossils.

All you saw was data and heard someone's speculations concerning the data.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Evolution is a fairy tale? That's a new one.
I'll tell you what is a fairy tale....some all powerfull all knowing being that can do magic.


The only reason you want it to be considered a FACT is so people will believe it


But it is a fact, even B.A.C. admits that much. You can see what you call microevolution all the time - that's obvious. We can't so much as directly observe 'macro-evolution' but there are fossils - transsitional fossils. Every fossil is transitional, every bone is transitional.

For those of you who believe in the young earth theory - theory as in idea, not to be confused with a scientific theory. Did you know that light exists! I know, big shock.....it's an actual fact that light takes billions of years to travel from galaxy to galaxy. I'l give you a minute to take that in...did you know the light from stars takes millions of years to get to us. Pretty much contridicts 10,000 years.

en.wikipedia.org...


Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the Heavens, Earth, and life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a short period, sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking the Hebrew text of Genesis as a literal account. Some adherents believe that existing evidence in the natural world today supports a strict interpretation of scriptural creation as historical fact. Those adherents believe that the scientific evidence supporting evolution, geological uniformitarianism, or other theories which are at odds with a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, are either flawed or misinterpreted.

Many Young Earth creationists (YECs) are active in the development of creation science, an endeavor that holds that the events associated with supernatural creation can be evidenced and modelled through an interpretation of the scientific method. This has led to the establishment of a number of Young Earth Creation Science organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society and Creation Ministries International.

YECs claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship. However, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that YEC claims have no scientific basis. For example, a statement by 68 national and international science academies lists the following as facts, established by numerous observations and independently-derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines, without any contradiction from scientific evidence: that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and has shown continuing change; that life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin


A little ownage every day doesn't hurt

[edit on 6-3-2009 by andre18]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18


Evolution has been described as "fact and theory", "fact not theory" and, "only a theory, not a fact". This illustrates a terminological confusion that hampers discussion

Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any hypothesis for which there is overwhelming evidence.

Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a 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



This post is a clear, concise, and factual explanation for anyone who is confused or uninformed about this topic.

Evolution has become an issue polluted with with political rhetoric and semantics to exploit the "terminological confusion" and manipulate the uninformed masses.

The debate exists in the political world of BS and in the minds of the uninformed.

In the scientific world their is no debate.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
From what I've read in this thread...there are a lot of people who seem to not understand how biological information is stored, propagated and used.
A fact of science is that it is a self-correcting system: through testing and observation, hypotheses and proven or discarded and theories are built from these.
Now...I do find creationism interesting...any form of it...from religion and from non-religious sources. What I do observe and do not agree is how "creationists" (don't like to tag people) claim to disprove something or argue how improbable something is but yet fail to provide alternative MECHANISMS to how biological entities change over time and adapt. Understanding the mechanism is key...that is why I consider that evolution has been confirmed by biochemistry, genetics, anatomy and molecular biology.
All scientists MUST be open to new ideas...and believe me, anyone coming up with solid evidence about anomalies that plague certain theories may be observing the incubation of a paradigm change...and become famous in the process.
I ask "creationists": what is your mechanism for biological diversity? How can your hypothesis (if you can provide any) be tested? What alternate interdependent system of variation do you provide?

Please do not go into philosophy or epistemology...I think it has been beaten to death.


Thanks,



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18

A little ownage every day doesn't hurt

[edit on 6-3-2009 by andre18]


So you show us the old "Light takes millions of years to get here! stuff"

When was the last time you took a science course andre?

That stuff you're trying to debunk the creation model with has been disproven and AGAIN we see the much purer Science of Mathmatics completely Destroy your little ownage.

The following articles are where this conclusion is reached showing data and math:

The data concerning the speed of light measurements was originally published by Flinders University in Australia after Lambert Dolphin, a (now retired) senior research physicist at Stanford Research Institute International requested a paper regarding the light speed changes. It is here:
www.setterfield.org...

Two papers dealing with the redshift and what it means are here:
www.setterfield.org...
www.setterfield.org...

The paper dealing with whether or not the redshift means the universe is expanding now is here:
www.setterfield.org...

More discussion on the vacuum of space itself is here:
www.journaloftheoretics.com...

The link between general relativity and the Zero Point Energy is here:
www.journaloftheoretics.com...

The paper exploring the mathematical link between the redshift and the ZPE is here:
www.setterfield.org...

A couple of papers linking everything as it pertains to the cosmos itself, including our solar system and then to the earth itself, are here:
www.setterfield.org...
www.setterfield.org...

The section of one paper dealing with the two types of time, atomic and orbital is section 4.4 of this one:
www.setterfield.org...

A group of three charts showing measured changes of the speed of light, Planck's constant, and the mass of the electron with the references is here:
www.setterfield.org...

Do your homework Andre and you'll see once again, Evolution not only doesn't have enough "Time" to have happened but not give anyone believing in such fairytales ( YES I SAID FAIRYTALE) the time


of day!



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
Evolution is a fairy tale? That's a new one.
I'll tell you what is a fairy tale....some all powerfull all knowing being that can do magic.


The only reason you want it to be considered a FACT is so people will believe it


But it is a fact, even B.A.C. admits that much. You can see what you call microevolution all the time - that's obvious. We can't so much as directly observe 'macro-evolution' but there are fossils - transsitional fossils. Every fossil is transitional, every bone is transitional.

For those of you who believe in the young earth theory - theory as in idea, not to be confused with a scientific theory. Did you know that light exists! I know, big shock.....it's an actual fact that light takes billions of years to travel from galaxy to galaxy. I'l give you a minute to take that in...did you know the light from stars takes millions of years to get to us. Pretty much contridicts 10,000 years.

en.wikipedia.org...


Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the Heavens, Earth, and life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a short period, sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking the Hebrew text of Genesis as a literal account. Some adherents believe that existing evidence in the natural world today supports a strict interpretation of scriptural creation as historical fact. Those adherents believe that the scientific evidence supporting evolution, geological uniformitarianism, or other theories which are at odds with a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, are either flawed or misinterpreted.

Many Young Earth creationists (YECs) are active in the development of creation science, an endeavor that holds that the events associated with supernatural creation can be evidenced and modelled through an interpretation of the scientific method. This has led to the establishment of a number of Young Earth Creation Science organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society and Creation Ministries International.

YECs claim that the lack of support for a Young Earth theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship. However, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that YEC claims have no scientific basis. For example, a statement by 68 national and international science academies lists the following as facts, established by numerous observations and independently-derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines, without any contradiction from scientific evidence: that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and has shown continuing change; that life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin


A little ownage every day doesn't hurt

[edit on 6-3-2009 by andre18]


No ownage. You're mad because:

1= Evolution is a fact.
2=The Theory of Evolution explains Evolution.

Do those sound the same? Not to me they don't. Read them.

Is 1 = 2? NO
Is 2 = 1? NO

This makes you mad. It's pure math. Math doesn't LIE.

Bring up all the crap you want and ridicule Creationists all you want on this thread. It still won't make 1 = 2.


Enough said. Let it drop.

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



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by matiascs

From what I've read in this thread...there are a lot of people who seem to not understand how biological information is stored, propagated and used.
A fact of science is that it is a self-correcting system: through testing and observation, hypotheses and proven or discarded and theories are built from these.
Now...I do find creationism interesting...any form of it...from religion and from non-religious sources. What I do observe and do not agree is how "creationists" (don't like to tag people) claim to disprove something or argue how improbable something is but yet fail to provide alternative MECHANISMS to how biological entities change over time and adapt. Understanding the mechanism is key...that is why I consider that evolution has been confirmed by biochemistry, genetics, anatomy and molecular biology.
All scientists MUST be open to new ideas...and believe me, anyone coming up with solid evidence about anomalies that plague certain theories may be observing the incubation of a paradigm change...and become famous in the process.
I ask "creationists": what is your mechanism for biological diversity? How can your hypothesis (if you can provide any) be tested? What alternate interdependent system of variation do you provide?

Please do not go into philosophy or epistemology...I think it has been beaten to death.


Thanks,



Do you people believing in this stuff even realize how ridiculous this statement is and those I have seen similar to it.

READ THIS:


A fact of science is that it is a self-correcting system: through testing and observation, hypotheses and proven or discarded and theories are built from these.

God knows if anything has changed its story over the last century, it is the Theory of evolution.

My question for you then is this, if a fact of science needs ANY kind of correction, alteration where new theory is built created or imagined from what used to be facts before these corrections take place, then what on earth are they calling it a FACT for in the first place.

More than that is why does a consensus insist on calling it a fact when it is the only theory allowed in this area of Biology. We have seen many here resign themselves to believing that evolution is taking place scoffing at anyone challenging it with ridicule but can't take it when they get what they dish out. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT DESTROYS THEIR ASSERTIONS.

Debate between Proff Lennox Mathmatics VS Prof. Richard Dawkins Zoo keeper and Atheist retardinare. Lennox shuts him out in the debate using MATH that has been a thorn in Dawkins Neck ever since because it makes evolution IMPOSSIBLE.

That is when they throw their hands up saying essentially we are too stupid understand mocking the creation model with staments referring to a "skydaddy" using "Magic" as if we don't see that for what it is the act of desperate scoundrels and sore losers.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join