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: 14
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I used to be a Christian, then my IQ broke the triple digit barrier. Any ways, people who believe the Earth is flat, center of the Universe, and creation have a lower IQ then any scientist. So yeah, not listening to you.




posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Yes, I’m not saying that isn’t the case. Regardless of the many possible sources, the indirect affect is the increased ambiguity of terms which serve some peoples beliefs. Whether intentional or otherwise, the main problem have is that it is tolerated by people whom no better.

il admit ive neer realy thought about it until i came acro the thread .. but by the same token i cant remeber ever seeing it in informal forum board let alone something the majority of science are doing conspiratorially as the op states

if i spot it in future though im happy to step in an have a quiet word with the offender about it


as does most of the planet
aint that the truth brother


I believe there is one, but it operates passively on a near unconscious level for most.
i coul accept that but id still want some evience of it happening more then just an occasional slip of the tounge


no real scientist would ever say such a thing. The naturalist zealots are the ones responsible for the blasphemy of true science.


but theres the problem with the op it stating 90% of the scientific comunity not a handful of people who predominatley dont know any better and a mild spattering of people who should


You can’t see it being a conscious effort; I could, but like you, I don’t think it is the case . . . I’m suggesting, for the most part, that it is happening on an unconscious level.
i think its the same deal as theory becoming synonimou with some idea i had at lunch

within the creationist community there are/were a few pushing it conciouslywhich would make it a conspiracy in the loosest sense) as an objection but now the masses who usually dont know any better picked it up and it become part of thier belief system so unconciously resist all urge to correct it ... if it stops bieng just a theory they might have to pay some attention to it

which is why time and time again the same name put the same 'evolution it only a theory' objection no matter how many times its corrected

i see the greying of this term theory as far more serious and pandemic then the op's 'theory of evolution is a fact' becasue it reflects baly and undermines all science .. what next i dont believe in atoms its only a thoery, dont beleive in germs causing diseae its only a theory

an its not somthing to be leveled just at creationists how many ats op's start i have a thoery .... not enough hours in the ay to reply to them all pointing out its an idea or a hypothesis




Working on it.
thanks buddy ^_^

the fact your having to work on it hints it no where near as prevelant as the op suggests

on the greying of theory half a dozen written an video examples would take 5 minute to find

its a problem from grass roots right up into high levels of goverment ..



[edit on 7/3/09 by noobfun]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
So, the strawman is still being beaten senseless?

Still a fair summary of the thread?


Originally posted by melatonin
So, the thread so far.

BAC is making an assertion that a vast majority of certain groups claim 'the theory of evolution is a fact', and is, in fact, a conspiracy. This hasn't been supported at all.

It's a mere hypothesis.

However, he is attempting to claim it is a fact.

And like a theory, a hypothesis is not a fact. Indeed, a theory could be considered more fact-like than an unsupported hypothesis, given that scientific theories are well-supported and -tested.

So, I suppose we could say "don't let him tell you that 90% of scientists and most 'evolutionists' state that 'the theory of evolution is a fact' is a fact".

Fair summary?


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


You're not worth the reply anymore.

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

You're trying to turn it into a war of beliefs.


No, I'm picking out your intellectually dishonest sleight of hand.


You know how crazy you sound? A Fact can be a Theory and a Fact? An Orange can be an Apple and an Orange can it? Good luck with that.

Do me a favor and go look up "Scientific Fact", then go look up "Scientific Theory". I'm right, you're wrong.

I'm not even gonna bother replying to your posts anymore.


Yes, I'm not saying that theory = fact. I'm saying that evolution is both fact and theory.

You are saying that the vast majority of scientists and 'evolutionists' are claiming that 'the theory of evolution is a fact'.

When, in fact, so far people have been quite able to distinguish between the fact and theory. And you can as well. Then you shift goalposts and make the claim about claims of 'the theory of evolution is a fact'.

It's a dishonest approach. Gravity is also both theory and fact. You even show this in your OP, and do the same for evolution.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

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


I used to be a Christian, then my IQ broke the triple digit barrier. Any ways, people who believe the Earth is flat, center of the Universe, and creation have a lower IQ then any scientist. So yeah, not listening to you.


If you're IQ is so high why don't you use it.

55% of scientists believe in a Creator.

Go educate yourself. I can't have a battle of the wits with the unarmed.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
So, the strawman is still being beaten senseless?

Still a fair summary of the thread?


Originally posted by melatonin
So, the thread so far.

BAC is making an assertion that a vast majority of certain groups claim 'the theory of evolution is a fact', and is, in fact, a conspiracy. This hasn't been supported at all.

It's a mere hypothesis.

However, he is attempting to claim it is a fact.

And like a theory, a hypothesis is not a fact. Indeed, a theory could be considered more fact-like than an unsupported hypothesis, given that scientific theories are well-supported and -tested.

So, I suppose we could say "don't let him tell you that 90% of scientists and most 'evolutionists' state that 'the theory of evolution is a fact' is a fact".

Fair summary?


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


You're not worth the reply anymore.

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

You're trying to turn it into a war of beliefs.


No, I'm picking out your intellectually dishonest sleight of hand.


You know how crazy you sound? A Fact can be a Theory and a Fact? An Orange can be an Apple and an Orange can it? Good luck with that.

Do me a favor and go look up "Scientific Fact", then go look up "Scientific Theory". I'm right, you're wrong.

I'm not even gonna bother replying to your posts anymore.


Yes, I'm not saying that theory = fact. I'm saying that evolution is both fact and theory.

You are saying that the vast majority of scientists and 'evolutionists' are claiming that 'the theory of evolution is a fact'.

When, in fact, so far people have been quite able to distinguish between the fact and theory. And you can as well. Then you shift goalposts and make the claim about claims of 'the theory of evolution is a fact'.

It's a dishonest approach. Gravity is also both theory and fact. You even show this in your OP, and do the same for evolution.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by melatonin]


You keep trying to summarize it.

The summary is in the OP, no need for anyone to summarize it.

Thanks for trying though.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
You keep trying to summarize it.

The summary is in the OP, no need for anyone to summarize it.

Thanks for trying though.


Oh, no. I'm summarising the progression of the thread.

So far. Nowhere. Was based on a strawman, and you're still parading it around like little Miss Gale.

Quite funny. Brings back memories of when the lulz were plenty.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


It is no slip of the tongue. Look at all the arguing to DEFEND a mistake.

I don't say The Theory is Evolution is "just" a Theory.

I don't say The Theory of Gravity is "just" a Theory.

Evolution is fact.

Gravity is fact.

I have no problems with that reality.

Theories are NOT facts, they are Theories. Whether they explain something in the best way or not, they are still a Theory. That is the truth. I don't like denying the truth because it suits my argument. I'd rather go with the truth.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
i'm not religious and i dislike religion as an institution. that said i think evolution is not quite 100% justified. i think there are some things that do make sense and others that don't.

for example I'm sure evolution happens on a cellular scale, where asexual single cell organisms can mutate eventually becoming a different thing. viruses and bacteria mutate all the time although i don't think anyone has certified they become new species by reproducing that in the lab.

i also think that natural selection works - so that the male or female with most descendants transmits their traits to the next generations, while those that don't reproduce die out.

but i find it really hard to accept the idea that random chromosome mutations would lead to a completely different viable species. and let's not forget that the particular mutated individual also needs to have a mate with similar mutations...

what is intriguing though is that embryos go through various stages looking like frogs and other things. and we also have similar genes to mice, apes and other such animals.

so my conclusion would be that "life" is some sort of API - a programming language that's constantly being improved. and just like any programming language, it will not be rewritten for each new version release, instead stuff will be added on top to make it better.

and of course i'd hate to go into xenu-theories, but it would make sense that some outer space aliens have experimented on this planet and reused the API to make new creations. even though i think those alien abduction stories are just figments of imagination i am quite sure that if life on earth is an alien experiment, the aliens are probably still around and still experimenting or at least observing.

in a way it's intelligent design, but without the religious/biblical aspect of it that is currently being pushed on schools. but that's just my opinion until some scientist can create a new multi-cell species (even a worm) in the lab using random mutations (chemical, radiation, environmental, etc) not genetic manipulation.

until then i accept evolution as the only scientific theory (as in "thats the best we can do right now") but not as a proven fact.


[edit on 7-3-2009 by DarkSecret]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


All the arguing on the thread PROVES my point.

One simple truthful statement "A Theory is not a Fact." does NOT go down to well with Evolutionists.


[edit on 7-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

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


All the arguing on the thread PROVES my point.

One simple truthful statement does NOT go down to well with Evolutionist.


The MO is just so obvious, lol. I've heard that somewhere before. Someone makes a crap thread based on the most inane basis, then even replying to it 'proves' its point.

The only 'arguing' I see is over your intellectual dishonesty.

Neither myself or Noob have claimed fact = theory or theory = fact. Not one of the articles you presented as evidence made those claims either. People agree with you that saying a theory is fact could be considered wrong - there has been little argument over that.

Yet you still dishonestly claim that there are all these people stating 'the theory of evolution is a fact' with not a shred of evidence. Just a dishonest sleight of hand and an explicit attempt to vilify two groups of people - 'evolutionists' and '90% of scientists'.

As I said, seen this type of demagoguery somewhere before.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

It is no slip of the tongue. Look at all the arguing to DEFEND a mistake.
what you?

mistake 1

no evidence of the 90% infact no one but your self has agreed that the scientific body making these claim is a rediculous point to try and make, its unsubstanciated nonsense you made up,

infact JPhish has said he has seen it used occasionally and is currently looking for examples .. from when we have talked in the past im inclined to believe him ... but he ha said him self its probabily slip of the tounge should know better but dont usage and nothing to do with the scientific body

mistake 2

failing to understand the word evolution can be subtituted for theory of evolution without altering the meaning of the sentance as the words context changes

mistake 3

bieng as, if not more dogmatic and relentless in your folly rather then admit the mistake you made in not understanding the dual use

showing your as bad as the people you are supposedly exposing

mistake 4

showing just how selective you are, you deffine the terms employ them against evolution both fact and thoery of ... and then turn around declare god as fact when everything you hae said and the deffintions YOU supplied shows god is a theory not a fact


I don't say The Theory is Evolution is "just" a Theory.
never said you did, i make claims on what people do say not what i want to pretend they did



Theories are NOT facts, they are Theories. Whether they explain something in the best way or not, they are still a Theory. That is the truth. I don't like denying the truth because it suits my argument. I'd rather go with the truth.


ahh so your willing to subject your beliefs to the same stringent process an rescend your statemnet god is a fact and is really a theory by your deffintions given?

or do you mean honest enough to admit you missed the point of the evolution is both fact and theory .. because you completley missed the differing context of the word and the interchangability?

or honet enough to admit i made niether claim i have so far been accused of? ya know 'the theory of evolution is a fact' and 'fact and theory are interchangable' ?

or ....... going to be selectively honesty to somthing else entirely?

[edit on 7/3/09 by noobfun]

[edit on 7/3/09 by noobfun]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


As JPhish suggested, the thread is well-baited. It depends on something that most would agree with - a theory is a theory. And a fact is a fact. (Although, not all would take this categorical basis, taking a more dimensional view of the nature of knowledge is possible).

Thus, once accepting that generally accepted claim, then to say a theory is a fact can be viewed as incorrect.

And as we see, I've seen few people responding disagree. I don't. You don't. None of the articles he links to do.

So it's based on something we tend to agree with, then undergoes the sleight of hand with the claim of vast majority of scientists and evolutionists claiming 'the theory of evolution is fact'. How very dare they do the thing almost all people have accepted would be wrong.

But it's just an unsupported hypothesis masquerading as fact. So feed an accepted truth and slide the lie by.

And when highlighted, the resident demagogue keeps repeating the same old accepted terms of reference that no-one has really disagreed with. So more rubes say 'yeah, that's true - a theory is not a fact, da bastids', yet it's based on smoke and mirrors.

Very funny. And very transparent. Now even discussing the intellectual dishonesty 'proves' the thread's thesis.

lol

Creationists: nature's lulz harvest.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


reply to post by melatonin
 


I think it's funny the way you both are reacting. I sense a lot of hostility there. Maybe you should go relax or something.

My OP fulfills the parameters for a Thread here on ATS.

If you don't like it, TOO BAD.

Trolls.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
This is ridiculous, stop debating science with scientists. Go write a book and take a philosophy class. Debate this in church, I'm sure you'll get a better turnout and less people will think you're a fool. So many of you are taking up where Richard Owen left off. This argument is over yet you insist to continue. Peace out, creationists.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I think it's funny the way you both are reacting. I sense a lot of hostility there. Maybe you should go relax or something.

My OP fulfills the parameters for a Thread here on ATS.

If you don't like it, TOO BAD.

Trolls.


Oh, no. I like it.

It more than fulfills the parameters for an ATS creationist thread, lol.

They are the gift that keeps giving.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arkahn
This is ridiculous, stop debating science with scientists. Go write a book and take a philosophy class. Debate this in church, I'm sure you'll get a better turnout and less people will think you're a fool. So many of you are taking up where Richard Owen left off. This argument is over yet you insist to continue. Peace out, creationists.


I'm not arguing Creationism. Go read the OP. That's for another thread.

Why do Evolutionists have to make it about personal beliefs?

I proved my point with the OP. I have no argument here.

I'm a fool for saying that the words "fact" and "theory" have two distinct and non interchangeable meanings? Ok then, I'm a fool. LOL



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Thanks!

ANY thread on ATS related to Creationism fulfills the parameters for a conspiracy.

This thread isn't about Creationism though.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
This thread isn't about Creationism though.


Yeah, I noticed.

It's a creationist's laughable attempt to vilify 'evolutionists' and scientists using their well-honed application of intellectual dishonesty.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Intellectual dishonesty? That's laughable.

I'm trying to make sure people use honesty when describing a theory.

I'm waiting with baited breath on your next reply.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
The clue is in the title "Theory"!!!

Doesn't make it right or wrong either way.

The problem is that we humans really like to join the dots, and end up getting the wrong picture very often. That's what evolution is, just joining the dots. I do know something, because I studied Geology and specifically Palaeontology for years.

For example the geological dating system fundamentally assumes that a certain baseline is correct, and all the layers either above or below it are a reference to that baseline, assuming certain rates of deposition, hence time. If any of those are wrong (and there is plenty of counter-proposals to suggest they are), then it falls down like a House of Cards.

I can poke loads of holes in Geology time-scales as well as Evolution. Similarly I can poke different holes at Creation.

The most logical theory to me is that everything started / was created by something incredible at the outset. Call it creation or intelligent design. A long time later humans were conceived and created by something else, possibly through genetic combination between different species, possibly Apes with something extra-terrestrial.

Whoever did that is to us is our Creator, and he/she is clearly intelligent. why do we have such a problem with this label? After all, we are now creating robots and ultimately will create other living things, so we will be intelligently (or stupidly) designing them.

All species, including ours, can improve or degenerate via mutations, and that's all we see in the geological record. There is no real evidence of one species changing into another...only if you join the dots. Species do adapt to their environment for sure, but they do not change from being a frog to a Prince for example. Enough said about Evolution, its just a theory.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by cavehomme]

[edit on 7-3-2009 by cavehomme]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join