Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact.

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
I say there is an "organized conspiracy to influence science education - ATS" by saying that The Theory of Evolution is a fact.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
This one little statement "The Theory of Evolution is a fact" will STOP someone from believing anything else. I'm not talking just belief in God, I'm talking about belief in other scientists as well. It isn't true. I can and have proved it. That's why it's VERY important to be perfectly clear.


I can PROVE that "The Theory of Evolution" is NOT a fact.

No more, no less.

Let's start with some science.

I'll define "Theory" and I'll define "Fact" scientifically and I'll do it in a very easy to understand way.

A "Theory" is a plausible way of explaining verifiable observations (facts). en.wikipedia.org... That was simple wasn't it?

A "Fact" is a verifiable observation. en.wikipedia.org... Another simple one.

Now the next time you hear someone say The Theory of Evolution is a fact, you can say NO it isn't and prove it.

Is Evolution a fact? Yes

Is Gravity a fact? Yes

Is The Theory of Gravity a fact? Of course not it's a theory that explains the fact of gravity.

Is the Theory of Evolution a fact? Of course not it's a theory that explains the fact of Evolution.

A Theory is not a Fact. A Fact is not a Theory. A Theory explains Facts.

I bet 90% of Evolutionists and Scientists say The Theory of Evolution is fact. This is proof of the conspiracy.

Or they will admit that the Theory of Evolution is not a fact. Which they will NEVER do. You won't see them admit this basic TRUTH.

The proof will be in this thread.

Edit: It took four pages of arguing on this thread for the first Evolutionist to admit that The Theory of Evolution is not a fact. Evidence of a conspiracy by science and evolutionists? Possibly.

deny ignorance



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




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Interesting.

You know I have a friend who has yet to tell me his big theory on why Evolution was a lie and why he is a Creationist(Something along the lines of Darwinism is a religion?).

Unfortunately we haven't had the chance to get together to chat about this one yet, supposedly there is so much that needs to be explained that you can't talk about it in a quick 15 min break lol.

I'm a bit delighted to stumble upon this for that reason. My one question to all creationists is this:

What about the dinosaurs?

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I have heard directly that Creation was some 6,000 years ago roundabout, and the dinosaurs went around 65 MILLION years ago.

I even saw this episode on tv where this Christian family took their kids to a museum of creation, saying that this is actually when the dinosaurs lived, not millions of years ago(as proved by science).

So what gives?

I'm not trying to seem condescending here, just curious as to what your take on this is(and ALL Creationists, for that matter).



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
I used to be a Christian my entire life, until about a year ago when i woke up and began to QUESTION everything. I now believe that evolution is the process in which life emerges, HOWEVER, I do believe that main stream evolution is missing a MASSIVE piece of the puzzle. This being that life is not just here by chance, there is intelligent design in creation. I believe that energy fields and forces that are not seen help make/shape life. I guess you can say that a higher force (such as god) is responsible for the creation, or it is we ourselves who are "god" and we are just experiencing our individual lives and experiences from an individual perspective to further our spiritual evolution/intelligence. I believe we are all one, as all things are interconnected in our universe like a spiders web.

Look at atoms, atoms are not a solid, though our reality looks and feels solid. Thats because our minds decode solids as solids and liquids as liquids in this reality, based on the frequency that the atoms are vibrating at. We all took grade school science and at least they taught us about atoms and vibrations. it's an easy concept to understand.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


But doesnt a fact always seen as a theory to the ignorant? If somone is incapable of understanding the information then how could they ever accept it as a fact.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I try to explain this to my evolutionist friends all the time, but they don't get it/ refuse to acknowledge it. A scientific fact is something that can be observed or reproduced in a laboratory setting. Macro-Evolution (The idea of a species breeding beyond itself, so it cannot reproduce with a member of a previous generation - no, mules don't count) is a THEORY. (same goes with any origin of the universe hypothesis) Believing in something you can't see is faith. Don't push your beliefs on me.

You lose points for sourcing Wikipedia though. XD



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
As a theory, both creationism and evolution were acceptable ways of explaining why we are here. The question of whether evolution happened or not is no longer a debate for creationists, instead it is a race to see who can disprove evolution on one or two points. Unfortunately for creationists, it has not been disproven in the last hundred or so years and instead theists have moved on to prove in other ways that their god of theism still exists.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I can PROVE that "The Theory of Evolution" is NOT a fact.

What you gave, once again, like everyone else.
Is not PROOF.
Its merely a theory from your own perceptions.
Some languages don't even contain the word, "Proof" or "Fact".
So those people don't even know what your talking about.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
It's stating the obvious to say that a theory is not always a fact. And since when is wikipedia a good reference for anything?

A theory explains a group of similar observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. There can be laws (proven hypotheses) and hypotheses (unproven) in a theory.

Why is evolution a theory and not a law? A law describes a single action and a theory explains a collection of related actions. There is more than one concept at play here, so evolution is a theory.

Anyways. Here's a real challenge. Prove creation without referencing the Bible, faith, or hearsay.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ohh_pleasee
Interesting.

You know I have a friend who has yet to tell me his big theory on why Evolution was a lie and why he is a Creationist(Something along the lines of Darwinism is a religion?).

Unfortunately we haven't had the chance to get together to chat about this one yet, supposedly there is so much that needs to be explained that you can't talk about it in a quick 15 min break lol.

I'm a bit delighted to stumble upon this for that reason. My one question to all creationists is this:

What about the dinosaurs?

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I have heard directly that Creation was some 6,000 years ago roundabout, and the dinosaurs went around 65 MILLION years ago.

I even saw this episode on tv where this Christian family took their kids to a museum of creation, saying that this is actually when the dinosaurs lived, not millions of years ago(as proved by science).

So what gives?

I'm not trying to seem condescending here, just curious as to what your take on this is(and ALL Creationists, for that matter).


I believe in a Creator.

I acknowledge there is a lot of evidence for evolution just not enough for me to give up my faith, that's all.

I'm not sure about the dinosaurs, who knows?

I do know that I don't consider dinosaurs to contradict the Bible.

In the Bible God clearly creates beast before man Gen 1:20. Who knows how long God played with them?

That isn't really the point of this thread. I made this thread so Evolutionists will quit calling The Theory of Evolution a fact.

Cheers.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by tamusan
Anyways. Here's a real challenge. Prove creation without referencing the Bible, faith, or hearsay.

i'm up for a challenge, but first . . .

define creation please?


[edit on 3/6/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
In fact if you ever talk to a true scientist, you will understand that there are no true laws. Laws are theories that can not be disproven and today we have the knowledge and technology to disprove any theory. This being the case, anyone saying that something can not be dis proven has faith. The truth behind the curtain is that many things have not been disproven yet, like evolution.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by tamusan
It's stating the obvious to say that a theory is not always a fact. And since when is wikipedia a good reference for anything?

A theory explains a group of similar observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. There can be laws (proven hypotheses) and hypotheses (unproven) in a theory.

Why is evolution a theory and not a law? A law describes a single action and a theory explains a collection of related actions. There is more than one concept at play here, so evolution is a theory.

Anyways. Here's a real challenge. Prove creation without referencing the Bible, faith, or hearsay.


I don't claim Creation is a fact, I believe it is, but I can't prove it (I'll know when I die I guess). Plain and simple.

You can't prove my OP wrong. It's the whole point of this thread. Science's own definition of "Theory" and "Fact" don't allow you to. Not mine, science.

Again I don't care if I used Wikipedia or not, prove me wrong.

I refer you to this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... where devout Evolutionists and World renowned Scientists define the word "Theory" and "Fact".

Cheers.


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



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
People who study science know that a theory is not always a complete fact. They know that there are proven and unproven parts of most theories.

People who like to believe in something and not take the evidence are the ones screaming fact. Be it evolutionists or creationist many just run along with the herd screaming fact....

edit to fix a typo...

[edit on 6-3-2009 by tamusan]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by tamusan
 


great post tamusan. A small post but a big contribution to this thread.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


So where is the proof?

Two Wiki entries hardly constitutes proof of either.

Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I've never told anyone that all of evolution is a fact.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
For creationists proof is faith and visa versa. it just happens that if you have faith, your mind can not be changed by facts. It is a loss of faith that opens ones eyes to other possibilities.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by tamusan
Anyways. Here's a real challenge. Prove creation without referencing the Bible, faith, or hearsay.

i'm up for a challenge, but first . . .

define creation please?


[edit on 3/6/2009 by JPhish]


Creation: the Hebrew creation myth, as told in the first book of the Bible, Genesis.

I should have been more specific. Creation happens all the time.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by tamusan

Creation: the Hebrew creation myth, as told in the first book of the Bible, Genesis.



Define "myth".

Once that is done, then you can define what is within the myth.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   

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


So where is the proof?

Two Wiki entries hardly constitutes proof of either.

Cheers!!!!


Proof of what?

You can search Google and Webster's and Britannica until the cows come home.

Prove ME wrong, I say I've already presented my proof, if you consider it an unreliable source, show us a more reliable source that says different.

Cheers.

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





new topics
top topics
 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join