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.

 

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

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


You know I find the story of Genesis very Allegorical. And I firmly believe that it was written that way. When it's written that it took god a day to make something. I think they are pretty much alluding that it took god one of his days to create whatever he created on that day.

I'm pretty sure that one of his days is pretty frickin long compared to one of our days.

I believe it's utter hubris on anyones part to even compare one of our days to one of his.

Anyways for all we know. God used evolution to create all of existence.
AFAIK creationism == evolution




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by bignick
6600 years ago, Adam and Eve were cast down on this planet, butt naked.
Being olympic swimming champions, helped them cross the oceans and have babies on each piece of land, who looked nothing like each other or their parents. That is how we came to being, folks! so start praying and 'don't let them tell you that Theory Of Evolution is a fact'.


Also, the millions of species were created by god on the side because he is creative and wants to give us that 'aquarium feel'.




[edit on 6-3-2009 by bignick]


You must not be too bright.

Evolution is fact.

The Theory of Evolution is not a fact.

What's that a Creationist who says Evolution is a fact? That's right.

Next time read the OP. It's all clearly stated.

This isn't the thread where we debate Evolution Vs. Creationism.

It's all clearly stated in my OP, and EVERY other post I've made.



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


This topic is much larger then what ever ignorant agenda you have. To only allow the discussion to go as deep as you want is doing MORE harm than good, but i wouldnt expect many to see that.

as was said before:

Evolution is a FACT. All life evolves and changes to survive in its surroundings through natural selection and mutation. This does NOT mean that this is the ONLY possiblity for the start of life. Creationism and Evolutionism may be complementary NOT opposite.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Wertdagf]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


While I don't much like your reasoning, I approve of effort in reconciling such issues.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by Welfhard
I don't say that the theory of evolution is a fact. I state simply that evolution is a fact (referring of course to the phenomena).

But it doesn't go against the existence of god, it goes against Genesis. The two are not the same thing. You are just unwilling to differentiate the two. The gallop polls have shown that the majority of "evolutionists" are christian, and that the majority of christians believe in evolution. Even the the catholic church has issued a public apology to CD, 200 years after his birth.

You're not advocating your belief in God by not believing in Evolution, you're advocating your belief in a story, a book.


Evolution is fact. I agree with this. Read my OP.

The Theory of Evolution is NOT fact, it is a Theory that explains Evolution.

I'll say it again Evolution is Fact. The Theory of Evolution explains the verifiable observations that make up Evolution the Fact.

That's the whole point of this thread. Read this thread.

This simple true statement freaks people out. Why?

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


That's not at all what I was talking about!



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by bignick
6600 years ago, Adam and Eve were cast down on this planet, butt naked.
Being olympic swimming champions, helped them cross the oceans and have babies on each piece of land, who looked nothing like each other or their parents. That is how we came to being, folks! so start praying and 'don't let them tell you that Theory Of Evolution is a fact'.


Also, the millions of species were created by god on the side because he is creative and wants to give us that 'aquarium feel'.




[edit on 6-3-2009 by bignick]


You must not be too bright.

Evolution is fact.

The Theory of Evolution is not a fact.

What's that a Creationist who says Evolution is a fact? That's right.

Next time read the OP. It's all clearly stated.

This isn't the thread where we debate Evolution Vs. Creationism.

It's all clearly stated in my OP, and EVERY other post I've made.



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


This topic is much larger then what ever ignorant agenda you have. To only allow the discussion to go as deep as you want is doing MORE harm than good, but i wouldnt expect many to see that.


The discussion about what? Evolution? Creationism? That isn't what this thread is about. That's a whole other topic. Read my OP. I make no claims about Evolution OR Creationism. I only make ONE claim. The Theory of Evolution is not a fact. This is true according to Scientific Definition. True.

It causes a lot of controversy though. and everyone wants to argue about other things.

One true statement. No other claims. It's all I've said.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Evolution is fact. I agree with this. Read my OP.

The Theory of Evolution is NOT fact, it is a Theory that explains Evolution.
no ones arguing at this point


I'll say it again Evolution is Fact. The Theory of Evolution explains the verifiable observations that make up Evolution the Fact.

That's the whole point of this thread. Read this thread.

This simple true statement freaks people out.


well wtf?

evolution - its a fact
theory of evolution - tis evolution in thoery form

notice that E word there evolution both fact and theory ....

youve just spent 3 pages arguing becasue you have simply over looked the fact evolution,ToE, theory of evolution are all interchangable

NOONE in this entire thread or any of the links you have provied have said emfatically that 'the theory of evolution' is a fact

everyone has differenciate between them it is both fact and theory .... jut not at the same time in the same context



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I pretty much think that we all agree that the "Theory of Evolution" is not a fact.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


I agree. I think that creationists are getting frustrated becuase everyone has gotten tired of them not having anything usefull to explain or say. You ask a creationist how life was made and he just says "god did it". Wow we have come a long way in the last thousand years. Untill creationists come up with something "complex" to say they will be ignored.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Evolution is fact. I agree with this. Read my OP.

The Theory of Evolution is NOT fact, it is a Theory that explains Evolution.
no ones arguing at this point


I'll say it again Evolution is Fact. The Theory of Evolution explains the verifiable observations that make up Evolution the Fact.

That's the whole point of this thread. Read this thread.

This simple true statement freaks people out.


well wtf?

evolution - its a fact
theory of evolution - tis evolution in thoery form

notice that E word there evolution both fact and theory ....

youve just spent 3 pages arguing becasue you have simply over looked the fact evolution,ToE, theory of evolution are all interchangable

NOONE in this entire thread or any of the links you have provied have said emfatically that 'the theory of evolution' is a fact

everyone has differenciate between them it is both fact and theory .... jut not at the same time in the same context


No the words Theory and Fact are NEVER interchangeable. Go read what I've been posting all along.

It's accepted Science 101. Scientific Definition. Look up "Theory" and look up "Fact.

You're wrong.

The Theory, Theory, I'll say it again Theory of Evolution is NOT a fact. It is a theory. Don't say it's a fact. It's clearly not, it's a Theory. Theories explain facts. The two are NOT interchangable.

Facts don't explain. Theories do. So how can a Theory be a fact?

Show me something that contradicts this statement. "A Theory explains a verifiable observation (fact)"

You can show it worded differently, but it still means the same thing.

A Theory is NOT a fact. A Theory explains facts. Show me a fossil that explained itself? Was that fossil a fact? Yes. Did the Theory of Evolution explain that fossil. Yes. Does that make the theory fact? NO. The fossil is the fact. The Theory explained the fossil.

It's hitting you on the head.


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



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I think that the "theory" of evolution is in the same class as the "theory" of gravity: they both are existant but can't be fully explained or proven. One problem with evolution is that it can't be directly observed, only inferred.

To all outward appearances birds with long or short beaks have always been birds with long or short beaks, cats with spots have always been cats with spots, and so forth. I will admit to being somewhat skeptical of the statement that one species can become another (dinosaurs to birds, e.g.), mainly because the evidence of such is tenuous at best (dinosaurs with feathers explains nothing...platypus, anyone?). But changes within species (developing longer beaks to get to insects vs. shorter beaks to better crack open seeds) is definitely, while only theorized, likely.

Another problem with evolution is how could an animal or plant adapt itself physiologically to its environment? How can a bird, with a brain half the size of a small marble, change its beak size to get at its food? How could a tiger literally change its stripes? How about termites? The only way they can process wood is because of a bacterium in their gut. Why would they start eating wood if they couldn't live off of it in the first place?

These are the types of questions that Creationists should ask and that evolutionists should be able to answer before either side can come to any definite conclusions.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Quaght
 


all good questions. and i do believe that many of those questions have all been answered in one form or another. However the truth is that we'll never really know.

I look at lizards that look like the bark of a certain tree or spiders that look exactly like the flowers they live on. And I wonder how in the world did they evolve to look like that.
Evolution in the making? Hand of god? Maybe it's both?
That's why I said in an earlier post that possibly god is using evolution to create such a diverse planet.
but anyways I digress. We are getting off topic.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

No the words Theory and Fact are NEVER interchangeable. Go read what I've been posting all along.
excellent ..where did i OR ANYONE say it was?



youve just spent 3 pages arguing becasue you have simply over looked the fact evolution,ToE, theory of evolution are all interchangable
well thats what i said

so evolution, theory of evolution an TOE are all interchangable so you can say evolution as an alternate with EXACTLY the same meaning a thoery of evolution ....(hey look evolution = theory)

evolution is also an observed fact = evolution = fact ... its magic

it mean both at different times under different contexts !!! alert the internets eveyone



It's accepted Science 101. Scientific Definition. Look up "Theory" and look up "Fact.

You're wrong.
no your arguing ghosts, you are making up thing you wish we had said in order for you to argue with those thing we didnt say and show you are right

the deffinitoions of scientific theory, and scientific fact, and general use theory, and general use fact (you statrted the threa witnh the general use meanings)

thoe are correct

the statement that evolution is a fact is correct

the statement evolution is a thoery is correct

the statemnet that 'evolutionary theory' is a fact is wrong .. and as yet NOONE ON THIS THREAD OR IN ANY LINK YOU HAVE SUPPLIED HAVE SAI THIS

so everything is correct except the make believe ghost arguments you are fabrictaing in an effort to prove you right an everyone else wrong

its that simple

and still no eveinece of any conspiracy except for accusation against your own ghost arguments, in effect you are disproving your self and only your self becasue you are arguing against statment of your own creation

[edit on 6/3/09 by noobfun]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by B.A.C.

No the words Theory and Fact are NEVER interchangeable. Go read what I've been posting all along.
excellent ..where did i OR ANYONE say it was?



youve just spent 3 pages arguing becasue you have simply over looked the fact evolution,ToE, theory of evolution are all interchangable
well thats what i said

so evolution, theory of evolution an TOE are all interchangable so you can say evolution as an alternate with EXACTLY the same meaning a thoery of evolution ....(hey look evolution = theory)

evolution is also an observed fact = evolution = fact ... its magic

it mean both at different times under different contexts !!! alert the internets eveyone



It's accepted Science 101. Scientific Definition. Look up "Theory" and look up "Fact.

You're wrong.
no your arguing ghosts, you are making up thing you wish we had said in order for you to argue with those thing we didnt say and show you are right

the deffinitoions of scientific theory, and scientific fact, and general use theory, and general use fact (you statrted the threa witnh the general use meanings)

thoe are correct

the statement that evolution is a fact is correct

the statement evolution is a thoery is correct

the statemnet that 'evolutionary theory' is a fact is wrong .. and as yet NOONE ON THIS THREAD OR IN ANY LINK YOU HAVE SUPPLIED HAVE SAI THIS

so everything is correct except the make believe ghost arguments you are fabrictaing in an effort to prove you right an everyone else wrong

its that simple

and still no eveinece of any conspiracy except for accusation against your own ghost arguments, in effect you are disproving your self and only your self becasue you are arguing against statment of your own creation

[edit on 6/3/09 by noobfun]


You ask me where you said that Evolution, and Theory of Evolution are interchangeable. Then you show me a quote of where you said those EXACT words?


Nice.

Enough said. Give it up.
Quit trolling.



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



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
No, it went like this...


Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by B.A.C.

No the words Theory and Fact are NEVER interchangeable. Go read what I've been posting all along.
excellent ..where did i OR ANYONE say it was?


Quit the BS, dude.

Trolling isn't showing your vacuous tripe for what it is.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Look, this is really simple to understand but it seems that some of you are incapable of rational thought.

1)Evolution defined as "change over time in a population" is a fact.

so that means that evolution defined as above is a fact, we CAN and DO observe that.

2)The statement "Horses and dogs come from a common ancestor" is not a fact.

This is a statement based on the theory of Evolution. It doesn't matter how much historical evidence you piece together or lie about, a)you CAN'T observe this and b)you can't replicate it, so it becomes a belief based on the theory of Evolution.

3) If a dog becomes observably changing species into two completely different types of animals over time (ain't gonna happen unless we become immortal and still it could not be disproven), then you can state that it is a fact, but the theory of Evolution would still be NOT a fact and would only be an explanatory mechanism for the observed phenomenon.


This is simple logic and THAT is the problem with modern scientific paradigms, because you have scientists not only believing that this is a proven fact, but attempting to force children and others to ACCEPT it as a fact.

Jaden


[edit on 6-3-2009 by Masterjaden]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by noobfun
 


I agree. I think that creationists are getting frustrated becuase everyone has gotten tired of them not having anything usefull to explain or say.


i think this ones frustrate becasue hi argument was base on semantics which no one iagreed with and when Mel introdued ome semantics of thier own and he bit it like a big fat fish and went powering off on a diatribe ...

he has no realise whats happened that he is bieng as ogmatical and nonsensical as he was accusing evolutionists as bieng

this leaves several choices amit he is wrong an jut as dogmatic an prone to slip in emantics as everyone else

throw the toys out of the pram an storm off never to return

or just keep going in the hopes everyone else gets bored and wonders off o he can just swith the subject slightly a if it never happened an not have to amit he just screwed up and did exactly what he is accusing others of

...apparently he likes option 3



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quaght
I think that the "theory" of evolution is in the same class as the "theory" of gravity: they both are existant but can't be fully explained or proven. One problem with evolution is that it can't be directly observed, only inferred.

To all outward appearances birds with long or short beaks have always been birds with long or short beaks, cats with spots have always been cats with spots, and so forth. I will admit to being somewhat skeptical of the statement that one species can become another (dinosaurs to birds, e.g.), mainly because the evidence of such is tenuous at best (dinosaurs with feathers explains nothing...platypus, anyone?). But changes within species (developing longer beaks to get to insects vs. shorter beaks to better crack open seeds) is definitely, while only theorized, likely.

Another problem with evolution is how could an animal or plant adapt itself physiologically to its environment? How can a bird, with a brain half the size of a small marble, change its beak size to get at its food? How could a tiger literally change its stripes? How about termites? The only way they can process wood is because of a bacterium in their gut. Why would they start eating wood if they couldn't live off of it in the first place?

These are the types of questions that Creationists should ask and that evolutionists should be able to answer before either side can come to any definite conclusions.


To anwser these questions as simply as possible would be to compare it to the developed human resistance to the flu virus.

Enviroment... food supply.... mating....... predators..... social structure.

Those aspect through natural selection provide the basis for every change in every animal. The birds that mutate longer beaks get food and dont die.... then they produce offspring with a greater genetic liklyhood of a long beak.

Cats with the correct camoflauge(AKA matching their surroundings) will be able to catch prey and not die.... those cats that are able to get food reproduce creating a greater genetic liklyhood that its offspring will have these genetic traits.

As for dinosaurs becoming birds... that is a bigger change that took MASSIVE amounts of time and DEATH to accomplish. To compare birds getting long beaks to dinosaurs is to compare the creation of the grand canyon to monkeys learning to wash their food. Personaly i think this came about because of bird MAIN source of food is insects. To catch flying bugs a reptile or any creature for that matter would need to become lighter, faster, and eventualy airborne themselves. To give you something to visualize...try to catch a fly in your mouth. i think you might get the picture.

It would take millions of generations of mutation to stumble upon a reduces bone density.... hairs that resist air in one direction(aka feathers). Needing to get to insects in a tree would leave you with a hard appendage that is able to break through its shelter. This could be a beak... a claw.... a tail. It all depends on how the mutation leads the creature.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun
becasue evolution is a fact, its just poor language use thats becoming the norm in the ame way as the other example i gave 'i dont see anything' instread of the more accurate i dont see.. what i am looking for/your saying is there

so are they both conspiracies?

or both poor language usage? i know in many cases with the creationit it only a theory an elemnt of dihonety i involve when they have uualkly be introduced to the differances between theory and scientific theory

There is a slight difference, because like I said . . . The scheme passively takes form because people naturally want to bolster their belief systems with dazzling diction. People are trying to sell their belief systems to others and reinforce their own faith as well. By using absolutes and claiming to know truths it conveys confidence to some, but to me, it denotes doubt in the person. I have no problem when super-naturalists do such a thing; however when people claim to be scientific, it bothers me, because again . . . like I said before, science is not suppose to have belief systems.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


So you don't believe in deductive reasoning?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


So you don't believe in deductive reasoning?


Of course I believe in DEDUCTIVE reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning can bring about facts, this is NOT deductive reasoning, this is inductive reasoning. you need a course in logic my friend if you believe that evolution can be considered deductive reasoning.

If you can show me evidence that can deductively show that a horse and a dog have a common ancestor, then I will openly admit that macro evolution exists.

The simple truth is that you CAN'T. You can only find evidence that inductively implies that this might be the case and even then it will only be through a strange interpretation of the evidence or accepting circular logicly obtained other "facts" like we can date the fossils or the earth for that matter. There is soo much circular inductive logic used in modern paradigms as to make almost all of modern science USELESS!!!!!

Jaden

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Masterjaden]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join