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: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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?



im sorry no i showed you a comment that states that evolution, theory of evolution and ToE are all interswitchable and mean the exact same thing as 'the theory of evolution' in the right context in the exact same way

jesus, christ, christ jesus and jesus christ are all interswitchable to be the same person

so i can say evolution when i mean the theory, i can say ToE when i mean the theory, i can say thoery of evolution when i mean the theory

that is a million bazillion light years and several orders of saniuty away from the two things you have o far accused me of which is stating fact an thoery are interchangable an have the same meaning whih they really dont and id love for you to show me that quote

and that i have also stated that 'the theory of evolution' is a fact ...again nonsense i have not uttered

but keep swimming lil fishy the tide cant be this storng all the time right?

so again ....

show me where i aid catagorically that fact and theory are interchangable an have the same meaning in any scientific context

and how me where i have said 'the theory of evolution' is a fact


theory of evolution = ToE = evolution = thoery ... in one context

in a different context

evolution = fact

see my two statements are drastically ifferent to the two your claiming i have said




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


Its also the same with creationism.... that is just as unproven. According to you just as ignorant to assume. Look at the millions of people who pray. They have submitted to this possiblity with no futher thought. Atleast evolutionists dont get on their knees everyday.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


Well I don't know about dog's and horses, they'll likely be distantly related. So what about modern day contemporary examples of macro-evolution? You know, the factual kind.
You have already stated that microevolution is real So all I have to do is give examples of speciation because the two added together equal macroevolution.

So take your pick.

www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

All cited and sourced!

My favourite is the bacteria that evolved to digest nylon.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


Exactly...
Just as gravity is a law and a theory.
Evolution is a theory and a fact.

I don't get why this is so hard to understand, especially since you and mel have explained it countless times...



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


Its also the same with creationism.... that is just as unproven. According to you just as ignorant to assume. Look at the millions of people who pray. They have submitted to this possiblity with no futher thought. Atleast evolutionists dont get on their knees everyday.


Did I once EVER say that creationism is a fact? Hell, did I even say that I BELIEVE in creationism.

That. my friend is a HUGE leap from me making a logicly sound statement against the modern misuse of science to me being a bible thumping prosletizer??????

That's like saying that if I don't like democrats that I must LOVE republicans and be for big corporate ownership of everything in America LOL....

What I AM saying is that it doesn't matter what I believe, it is not my place to tell you what to believe or what to think. It is only my goal to show people HOW to think rationally and logically, and THAT should be the goal of modern science. Teach people the evidence and how to think logically and let them make up their own mind.



Jaden

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Masterjaden]

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Masterjaden]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


Its also the same with creationism.... that is just as unproven. According to you just as ignorant to assume. Look at the millions of people who pray. They have submitted to this possiblity with no futher thought. Atleast evolutionists dont get on their knees everyday.


Did I once EVER say that creationism is a fact? Hell, did I even say that I BELIEVE in creationism.

That. my friend is a HUGE leap from me making a logicly sound statement against the modern misuse of science to me being a bible thumping prosletizer??????

That's like saying that if I don't like democrats that I must LOVE republicans and be for big corporate ownership of everything in America LOL....


Jaden

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Masterjaden]


Why do you make an assumption i though you were a christian? I was mearly extending your logic so as not to be biased to one side of this discussion.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


Its also the same with creationism.... that is just as unproven. According to you just as ignorant to assume. Look at the millions of people who pray. They have submitted to this possiblity with no futher thought. Atleast evolutionists dont get on their knees everyday.


Did I once EVER say that creationism is a fact? Hell, did I even say that I BELIEVE in creationism.

That. my friend is a HUGE leap from me making a logicly sound statement against the modern misuse of science to me being a bible thumping prosletizer??????

That's like saying that if I don't like democrats that I must LOVE republicans and be for big corporate ownership of everything in America LOL....


Jaden

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Masterjaden]


Why do you make an assumption i though you were a christian? I was mearly extending your logic so as not to be biased to one side of this discussion.

I didn't claim that you were accusing me of being a christian, you WERE implying that I believe that creationism is more valid than evolution. I state that it doesn't matter what I think, it neither bolsters my argument validly nor takes away from the logical validity of my argument

You are unequivacably correct that it works on both sides, but I haven't seen anyone stating that creationsim is a fact and lieing to our kids about it being so. I HAVE on numerous occasions seen in textbooks and heard supposedly learn-ed people claim that evolution in all its respects is a fact and that my friend is one of the biggest jokes of the year.

Here's a question for you which came first the chicken or the egg?

answer from an evolutionist: the egg

answer from a creationist: the chicken

correct answer based on a logical interpretation of our current evidence: the egg, dinosaurs were laying eggs long before chickens ever existed.

Were there eggs millions of years ago. Not enough evidence logically because of all of the aofrementioned problems with the paradigms of science and the house of cards that it has become.

In an effort to make their theories more acceptable scientists made inductive logic a valid mechanism for determining facts. That is the worst thing they could have done sociologically and we are now paying the price of it as a completely disparatous society about things which are unproveable on both sides.

Jaden

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Masterjaden]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
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.


like i said before im willing to bet thoe instances are either slip of the tounge poor wording or someone who could use a better eductaion on the terminology and what they mean and in some(a small moinority) case probably ye someone trying to appear like they know more then they really do .. which is a way of boltering thier argument

..the belief system hmm im not convince on .. if they think they have to believe evolution not just understand it and accept the evidence then they need better education

i dont think theres a real conciouse effort involved or secret agreement (conspiracy) to state emfatically as the op stated that 'the theory of evolution is a fact'

while i can imagine people making the crew up to state ToE is a fact, and im sure if you hunt around ats and youtube enough you might find a few instances of this cross comment poping up .. as yet i havnt seen it that i can remember, and i really dought its a slip that going to be made by scientific literature

all of the links provided have clearly differenciated between evolution the fact and evolution the theory

so evolution is fact, evolution is thoery but as the op stated 90% of all sceintists are saying the theory is a fact ..and so far we havnt seen ANY evidence for that claim

as i say i can imagine someone with very little scientific knowlege making that slip and not knowing it wrong, and people with sceintific understanding occasionally making it as a slip of the tounge.. i cant see any evidence of a concerted concious effort by any group let alone the scientific community to misrepresent and confuse the two statements


if youve got any to hand that are not differenciating between evolution the fact and evolution the theory for the love of god man pull em out quick so this thread actually has some substance to discuss .. pwetty please


[edit on 6/3/09 by noobfun]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 

A theory in science is a group of scientifically proven facts grouped together Issac Newton theory of gravity proves gravity exists through observations. Now you can be foolish all you want but if you want to test this theory drop something if it flies upwards the theory of gravity has been disproved. There is also clear evidence that evolution has and does occur. We see it in fossil records as well as biology labs. We can see micro organisms adapt though thousands of generations.

Now if this is just your way of trying to prove creationism my suggestion would be to not try to disprove observed facts but instead try to show evolution was planned. Trying to say science is wrong by nit picking 1 word namely theory is foolish and shows you have no understanding of scientific princibles.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


Well I don't know about dog's and horses, they'll likely be distantly related. So what about modern day contemporary examples of macro-evolution? You know, the factual kind.
You have already stated that microevolution is real So all I have to do is give examples of speciation because the two added together equal macroevolution.

So take your pick.

www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

All cited and sourced!

My favourite is the bacteria that evolved to digest nylon.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Welfhard]


you don't only have to give evidence of speciation. It is much more complex than that. There is no logical definition of species, it is a homogenous term defined by scientific consensus.

That's like letting the fox tell you how to define security of the hen house.

If there was a logical definition of species, that could show vast differences in those species, then you MIGHT with a BIG MIGHT be able to show some valid evidence that would unfortunately for the argument for macro evolution still only be inferential at best, but still, you can't because there isn't a well defined definition for species and they cahnge it all the time whenever they find something that doesn't fit into the current paradigm.

Jaden



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

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

A theory in science is a group of scientifically proven facts grouped together Issac Newton theory of gravity proves gravity exists through observations. Now you can be foolish all you want but if you want to test this theory drop something if it flies upwards the theory of gravity has been disproved. There is also clear evidence that evolution has and does occur. We see it in fossil records as well as biology labs. We can see micro organisms adapt though thousands of generations.

Now if this is just your way of trying to prove creationism my suggestion would be to not try to disprove observed facts but instead try to show evolution was planned. Trying to say science is wrong by nit picking 1 word namely theory is foolish and shows you have no understanding of scientific princibles.


That's ridiculous. The theory of gravity postulates that an objects mass is the CAUSE of its gravitational field. Gravity exists and is a fact, the theory of gravity believes that it is caused by mass and THAT my friend is UNPROVEABLE.

Even if you could show that mass and gravity are related, that is only correlation, not causation, so the theory of gravity is NOT a fact only the observed phenomenon of objects falling within the confines of MUCH larger objects.
Jaden

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Masterjaden]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


You criticism is that species is "agreed upon" yet is still too complicated. Sigh. Well it's certainly a damn sight better that "kind".

Species are generally quite simple. Any two healthy organisms that can produce fertile offspring are the one species. Any two healthy organisms that cannot produce fertile offspring are not the same species (with exceptions such as ring species, in which they are considered non-interbreeding subspecies).

The experiments have been done with fruit flies. Take one population of flies, divide, keep isolated for sufficient generations till groups can no longer cross breed. Speciation 101.

Speciation is fact, it has been observed loads. Microevolution is also fact and is so observable that even YEC's recognise it's factuality.

When you have microevolution and speciation, over great numbers of generations and enough gradual change you have macroevolution.


Microevolution and macroevolution are redundant terms now, used primarily when ToE was still fairly Darwinian, ie. pre- discovery of DNA.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Ladies and gents, time to say goodnight:



"The Theory of Evolution" is NOT a fact.


1)
Correct. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. The fact of evolution is a scientific fact.

2)
But what if those who say that "the theory of evolution is a fact" ment that it is so, because EVOLUTION is no longer a theory, it has been proven, and is now a fact?




Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact.


3)
The process of evolutionary change has been observed in the laboratory and is a fact of evolution.

4)
The explanation of the fact of evolution provided by the modern synthesis is the latest and most widely accepted theory of evolution.

-So evolution is a fact and a theory



A "Fact" is a verifiable observation




If someone could PROVE to me that God was not fact. I'd have to admit it. I'd be big enough to admit it.


5)
Using your very own definition of fact:
God has not been observed, he is thus not a fact. I have just proved to you that god is not a fact. I dont expect you to be true to your word and be big enought to admit THAT. But maybe the others out there will appreciate to know that.



Thank you, and good night. Have a good one B.A.C.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Daniem]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


The problem I see is that when people are talking about the evidence that supports evolution, the say the evidence as described is factual which leads to the problem you've laid out.

I believe that when most people are saying the theory of evolution is fact, they are using the words FACT in it's informal, non-scientific sense.

Just my opinion.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


You criticism is that species is "agreed upon" yet is still too complicated. Sigh. Well it's certainly a damn sight better that "kind".

Species are generally quite simple. Any two healthy organisms that can produce fertile offspring are the one species. Any two healthy organisms that cannot produce fertile offspring are not the same species (with exceptions such as ring species, in which they are considered non-interbreeding subspecies).

The experiments have been done with fruit flies. Take one population of flies, divide, keep isolated for sufficient generations till groups can no longer cross breed. Speciation 101.

Speciation is fact, it has been observed loads. Microevolution is also fact and is so observable that even YEC's recognise it's factuality.

When you have microevolution and speciation, over great numbers of generations and enough gradual change you have macroevolution.


Microevolution and macroevolution are redundant terms now, used primarily when ToE was still fairly Darwinian, ie. pre- discovery of DNA.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Welfhard]


I stopped as soon as you mentioned kind. If you have no valid argument other than, "Mine's better than HIS" then just give up already.

I am not espousing ANY viewpoint at all. I am making rational argument based on logic. YOU are trying to say that something is FACT. I am simply pointing out the logical failure of your argument.

If you can't argue based on LOGIC and give logical proof that something that you are claiming to be fact is in actuality is a fact, then YOU fail at proving your supposed fact.

It is not place to replace your lack of fact with another fact. I am stating that in these instances there can be NO fact. They are all beliefs.

One MAY or may NOT be more valid based on evidences than the other, but don't call them facts unless you can back it up with logically valid deductive based reasoning showcasing that.


As I said, if you can show with evidence or through deductive logic based on evidence that a horse and a dog have common ancestry then I will state that macroevolution is valid.

This does not mean that I am a creationist or even religious, it means that I am a realist and a logical philosopher.

Based on what I have stated in this thread, you can make NO logical assumption WHATSOEVER, as to what my beliefs are. I have stated nothing other than that the theories ARE NOT FACTS.

God creating the world in seven days is NOT a fact. Walruses sharing a common ancestor with birds is NOT a fact.

These are logical arguments and are logically valid. It doesn't matter what my personal viewpoints are regarding the TRUTH of these staements is, they will never be facts because we cannot VIEW them, they are NOT observable phenomenon and you cannot provide deduced logcial arguments based on evidence that shows that they are.

At best you can use deductive logic given accepted premises that are not falsifiable which makes them scientifically unsound.

You people need to wake up and realize how LITTLE we really KNOW.....

Only then can you be wise.

Jaden.

I am not the most knowledgeable, but it appears that I may be one of the most wise.....


[edit on 6-3-2009 by Masterjaden]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


Oh waa waa. I wasn't insinuating you were a creationist by referring to 'kind'.

Now if you'll kindly get over yourself and notice the many observations of speciation in the wild and in the lab, we can move on.


These are logical arguments and are logically valid. It doesn't matter what my personal viewpoints are regarding the TRUTH of these staements is, they will never be facts because we cannot VIEW them, they are NOT observable phenomenon and you cannot provide deduced logcial arguments based on evidence that shows that they are.


Very true which is why I wasn't trying to prove them as fact. You have stated that dogs and horses sharing a common ancestor is not a fact cos we can't observe it, but you also said you didn't believe in macroevolution at all. It's the mechanism of macroevolution that I'm trying to get at here- not your dog/horse thing.

Macroevolution is observable now in things that are evolving now and are facts. The ones that happened thousands of years ago are not, just evident

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
A theory, and scientific theory aren't really the same things. Or at least, they don't follow the same definition.

In order for something to become a scientific theory, it has to face the scientific method. It's not like scientists go, "hmm, I have a good idea" and BAM, it's a scientific theory.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
The whole of biology science is now understood in terms of evolution, and that understanding has resulted in very promising therapies for all sorts of maladies that now inflict our species. In point of fact there are very few scientific realms that do not include the notion of evolution and natural selection within their philosophy. In our lifetime bacteria and germs have responded to artificially induced hardships by evolving into hardier and more resistant strains of their genus. Natural Selection is real. Evolution is real. God is false. Creationism is false. This isn't design but a divine fluke falling out in a natural progression. The universe is a cosmic feedback loop. a happenstance triggers a response which initiates yet another happenstance which triggers yet another response.. ad infinitum. It's one big loop, Yin and Yang if you want to go that way, but however you want to intellectually deal with it, the fact of the matter is that we seem to be in some kind of moebius strip of a universe that constantly changes and yet always leads back to itself. This is beyond intelligent design. This is more in the realm of Tao. The unknowable known.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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?



im sorry no i showed you a comment that states that evolution, theory of evolution and ToE are all interswitchable and mean the exact same thing as 'the theory of evolution' in the right context in the exact same way

jesus, christ, christ jesus and jesus christ are all interswitchable to be the same person

so i can say evolution when i mean the theory, i can say ToE when i mean the theory, i can say thoery of evolution when i mean the theory

that is a million bazillion light years and several orders of saniuty away from the two things you have o far accused me of which is stating fact an thoery are interchangable an have the same meaning whih they really dont and id love for you to show me that quote

and that i have also stated that 'the theory of evolution' is a fact ...again nonsense i have not uttered

but keep swimming lil fishy the tide cant be this storng all the time right?

so again ....

show me where i aid catagorically that fact and theory are interchangable an have the same meaning in any scientific context

and how me where i have said 'the theory of evolution' is a fact


theory of evolution = ToE = evolution = thoery ... in one context

in a different context

evolution = fact

see my two statements are drastically ifferent to the two your claiming i have said


You said interchangeable. I have proof of that too. Period.,

They are neither interchangeable or interswitchable (is this even a word?).

Now you're making words up?

Again Nice.

Give it up. Troll.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

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


Ladies and gents, time to say goodnight:



"The Theory of Evolution" is NOT a fact.


1)
Correct. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. The fact of evolution is a scientific fact.

2)
But what if those who say that "the theory of evolution is a fact" ment that it is so, because EVOLUTION is no longer a theory, it has been proven, and is now a fact?




Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact.


3)
The process of evolutionary change has been observed in the laboratory and is a fact of evolution.

4)
The explanation of the fact of evolution provided by the modern synthesis is the latest and most widely accepted theory of evolution.

-So evolution is a fact and a theory



A "Fact" is a verifiable observation




If someone could PROVE to me that God was not fact. I'd have to admit it. I'd be big enough to admit it.


5)
Using your very own definition of fact:
God has not been observed, he is thus not a fact. I have just proved to you that god is not a fact. I dont expect you to be true to your word and be big enought to admit THAT. But maybe the others out there will appreciate to know that.



Thank you, and good night. Have a good one B.A.C.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Daniem]


Slow down.

Evolution is a fact. It didn't have to be proven. It's a fact. We attempt to prove theories, not facts.

Do we know EVERYTHING about Evolution? NO The stuff we don't know will be added to the Theory when we find it. The facts we haven't yet found, will be added to the theory. Theory is NEVER fact. Theory changes.

Hope this clears it up.

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



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join