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: 25
14
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I don't understand if this thread is about Evolution or scientific syntax. I always see people arguing about 'what is a fact' and 'what is theory,' and to be honost it seems to derail a debate into nit-picking. I think evolution is a fact, which is why when i talk about it I don't refer to it as 'The Theory of Evolution,' I call it like I see it. You wouldn't see a Christian refer to his/her religion as 'The Theory of Christianity,' that would be blasphemous. Nothing in the world is black and white; right and wrong... One persons indisputible fact may be laughable to somebody else, which again derails progress.

I think at this point Evolution (natural selection included) does not need any title to prove its importance. It has, over the years of study, proved itself relevant in just about every aspect of life be it Economics, Science, Computer Science or even something as simple as reading.

I find it silly that some people dismiss Evolution just because it is considered a Theory. Especially with the current advances and discoveries with genes, I doubt it will be long before 'indisputible evidence' for some will be brought into the light.... I doubt it will be enough to sway the dogmatic.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

It's a common feature, and I just tried to cover the bases. You might not like my expressions, but they are not meant to be insults.


Science is the same way, as we trace our existence back through time with science it leads to more questions. The questions on both sides will never end with the reason we have to work with.

Either way there is a "Causer" that just keeps leading to more questions.


Of course! But just invoking a supernatural cause to fill the gaps is really a non-answer.


I'm glad you have admitted that naturalism cannot provide an answer to where nature comes from or why it here, as opposed to not being here.
That being said, when it comes to the origin of nature. Naturalism can only provide a non answer. Essentially is just throwing its hands up and declaring "it just is, no reason needed".

Theism at least provides an answer. It seems logically obvious. Something can't be its own cause.

Nature can't be the cause of nature.

It could be argued that nature has no beginning, and thus no cause. But that still wouldn't answer the question as to why nature is the way it is, as opposed to some other way. (Unless you wanted to attribute a "will" to nature, in which case prepare to accept theism)

[edit on 9-3-2009 by hulkbacker]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Look up the latest court case that parents filed because The Theory of Evolution was being presented as fact and not being presented as theory.



I leave that to you as it's your argument. And anyways 1 or 2 court cases in the United Bible States of America aren't going to prove your argument. Further more you were speaking of that "ridicule stuff", not theory and fact "controversy".




The Theory of Evolution raises more questions than it answers. Sad isn't it?


"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."

I guess you don't really understand what that really means. It's okay, it took me a very long time too.

edit.

Looking stuff from the last pages. You've failed to answer like a billion things.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What is the probability that Order arises from Chaos without a Causer?


Our Universe is what it is based on the laws that exist within it.
That's like asking "What is the probability that an apple looks like an apple without someone constructing it?".
No one had to construct the Apple, the more logical solution is that there is a natural cause.

Likewise, no one had to construct our Universe for it to appear to have order, it simply is what it is by it's own laws.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I hate when I open a thread with a very strong title thinking there might be some shocking or at least interesting information, just to find out the OP is just playing word games.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
I'm glad you have admitted that naturalism cannot provide an answer to where nature comes from or why it here, as opposed to not being here.


Wrong question, really. Could eventually give you where's and how's.

You might not like what metaphysical naturalism suggests, but that's no matter. No one is asking you to accept it.


That being said, when it comes to the origin of nature. Naturalism can only provide a non answer. Essentially is just throwing its hands up and declaring "it just is, no reason needed".

Theism at least provides an answer. I seems logically obvious.


Nope, the answer to that question is 42. We've known that for a while.

You're expressing promiscuous teleology. Not all that happens has purpose.

Clouds are not for raining.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."

I guess you don't really understand what that really means. It's okay, it took me a very long time too.


You're quoting scripture to me now? Funny.

It means that we are ALL fools. Except you consider yourself wise because of Science.

I don't consider myself wise because of anything. None of us are truly wise.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox


Our Universe is what it is based on the laws that exist within it.
That's like asking "What is the probability that an apple looks like an apple without someone constructing it?".
No one had to construct the Apple, the more logical solution is that there is a natural cause.


thats nor really applicable. consider your first sentence and apply that to the apple. Also, theist would postulate that he apple is the end product of some design.


Likewise, no one had to construct our Universe for it to appear to have order, it simply is what it is by it's own laws.



not really, becasue the laws within the universe lead us to believe that intelligence is needed where we find specefied complexity.
Imagine this scenario.

I'm told that I will be killed if I can't flip a coin and have it land on heads 3000 consecutive times. I manage to flip the coin 3000 consecutive times and it lands on heads everytime. Because I met the criteria, I look back and see that my coin flipping was possible. After all, it happened. That shouldn't keep me from exploring the VERY real likleyhood that there was some agent acting to bring the highly imporbable to fruition.

Of all the billions of possibilities our universe could have taken, It took this one. Sure, we wouldn't be able to ask ourselves the questions if if didn't go as such. But thats not really a logical reason to dimiss the question at hand.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trauma
I hate when I open a thread with a very strong title thinking there might be some shocking or at least interesting information, just to find out the OP is just playing word games.


Yup word games.

I say "The Theory of Evolution is not a fact". A true statement, but very few said "Well of course it isn't a fact". In which case I would have moved on and not had to respond to their other arguments that have nothing to do with the statement.

The Theory of Evolution is NOT a fact.

That doesn't go over to well with Evolutionists. They think you are saying "It's just a theory" when it's really saying that NO theory is fact, all theories are "just" theories. Simple. Which should have been agreed to quickly, but everyone wants to bring that statement other places.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Nope, the answer to that question is 42. We've known that for a while.


why would 42 give us the current universe? why does 42 exist?



Not all that happens has purpose.

Clouds are not for raining.


If naturalism is truth. then ultimatley nothing has a purpose.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker

Originally posted by melatonin

Nope, the answer to that question is 42. We've known that for a while.


why would 42 give us the current universe? why does 42 exist?


hoo nose?

You would need to ask the Holy Douglas Adams. He's dead, but I've been trying goats entrails to connect, no success thus far!



Not all that happens has purpose.

Clouds are not for raining.


If naturalism is truth. then ultimatley nothing has a purpose.


I do!



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
That doesn't go over to well with Evolutionists. They think you are saying "It's just a theory" when it's really saying that NO theory is fact, all theories are "just" theories. Simple. Which should have been agreed to quickly, but everyone wants to bring that statement other places.


Please don't misrepresent what the problem was. I find it insulting, so how very dare you!

[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
1)*potential for big bang* cannot be the naturalist "Ultimate explaination" because its only potential. There must still be some other force at work in order to "set it off".


Or perhaps instead there should have been some other force that kept it from "setting off", but there wasn't..




2)Ultimatley naturalism provides no explaination. It just says. " Things just are, no explaination needed"


So how do religions really differ? Why did God create the Universe? Because he wanted to? Why did God want to create the Universe? He just did, no explanation needed?




3)Naturalism robs truth of power.


Say what?




4)I think you misapply Occums razor. IF I ask you, "why did this house get here?" and you respond by saying that "I wanted to have a house built and paid a carpenter to do it "
But then your twin borther tells me that your lying and "your house was just always here".

Well I would logically take your answer over your brothers. Despite the fact that his solution was the "simple one".


Your analogy fails, because a house requires a designer. If you want to you can try to build an analogy around a stone that sort of looks like the face of Jesus or something..



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

You're quoting scripture to me now? Funny.

It means that we are ALL fools. Except you consider yourself wise because of Science.

I don't consider myself wise because of anything. None of us are truly wise.


AFAIK I was quoting Shakespeare.

And the meaning behind it.. nope you got it wrong. Think harder. You might want to google up some Socrates quotes. He said the same thing with different words.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
For example, it is a scientific fact that humans and apes have a common ancestor. This is empirical observation. The explanation of this observable fact is theory. Thus, the mechanism underpinning this evolutionary process might have been solely darwinian or not. That's were the theory comes in.
[edit on 6-3-2009 by melatonin]


This is from your very first post on this thread. Instead of agreeing to my statement, you are arguing something else. Just like I said.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Originally posted by B.A.C.

You're quoting scripture to me now? Funny.

It means that we are ALL fools. Except you consider yourself wise because of Science.

I don't consider myself wise because of anything. None of us are truly wise.


AFAIK I was quoting Shakespeare.

And the meaning behind it.. nope you got it wrong. Think harder. You might want to google up some Socrates quotes. He said the same thing with different words.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]


Ro:1:22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

This is what I thought you were referring to, or any number of scriptures that say pretty much the same thing.

Anyhow we have different interpretations I guess. You believe what you want, I''ll do the same.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by melatonin
For example, it is a scientific fact that humans and apes have a common ancestor. This is empirical observation. The explanation of this observable fact is theory. Thus, the mechanism underpinning this evolutionary process might have been solely darwinian or not. That's were the theory comes in.
[edit on 6-3-2009 by melatonin]


This is from your very first post on this thread. Instead of agreeing to my statement, you are arguing something else. Just like I said.



Yeah, it makes a clear distinction between evolution as fact and theory. That point was pretty inane - well done, you figured out that evolutionary theory is not considered as fact, lol. I'm sure you'll find futher shocking revelations in your new dictionary. Worthy of a thread? Perhaps for the bottom-feeder forum.

So, agree with what? What was the contentious issue? The lie you told about 90% of scientists and evolutionists saying the the 'theory of evolution is a fact'? That was my problem.

A point I wanted evidence for by my third post, but you still haz none.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
Of all the billions of possibilities our universe could have taken, It took this one. Sure, we wouldn't be able to ask ourselves the questions if if didn't go as such. But thats not really a logical reason to dimiss the question at hand.


But you're looking at probability wrong.

By this same logic, you could count all the atoms in your body, in the precise order they are in, at this one moment in time, and you could calculate the odds of that happening and conclude that it must have been a magic man.
Don't you see? No matter what the outcome is, the probability will be extremely low given the bases of our vast Universe.
But that only proves a vast Universe, it has no say in the supernatural.


You say:
"Of all the billions of possibilities our universe could have taken, It took this one."

But what if it had taken another course?
You would still be using that argument, and the probability would still be extremely low.
That argument is completely irrelevant.

And as for your coin flipping example, the odds of you getting heads 3,000 times in a row is the same as any other scenario.
What makes it seem different is the fact that you are taking one scenario and weighing it against all the other trillions of scenarios - you are doing the exact same thing with our Universe.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO


Or perhaps instead there should have been some other force that kept it from "setting off", but there wasn't..


But if it had potential and it did not go off, then the force was at some point there. what happend to it?





So how do religions really differ? Why did God create the Universe? Because he wanted to? Why did God want to create the Universe? He just did, no explanation needed?


theism gives us a supernatural cause for the universe. Naturalism does not.
Theism can't in turn answer the same questions about God. But now we are asking a different question. Like the gravity example I gave several posts back that no one responded to. Probabley got lost in all the quick responses.






3)Naturalism robs truth of power.


Say what?

like all other forces or aspects of the universe. It is only means to an end, it has no actual value. See my other thread.






Your analogy fails, because a house requires a designer. If you want to you can try to build an analogy around a stone that sort of looks like the face of Jesus or something..


Why does the house require a designer? hmm, maybe it just gives that impression.

If you like, lets use Mt. Rushmore, is that better. Lets teleport to 00 yrs in the future there has been some natural disaster and all life on earth is estinguished. Earth is now used by some aliens as a prison for evil doers. 3 evil humanoid aliens get dropped off on earth. They have no evidence for life ever existing in a prior time on this planet. They go walking around in South Dakota. they look up and see the mt. Rushmore.
Alien 1: how did that get there?
Alien 2: Its always been there!
Alein 3: something with brains must have caused it.

Assuming the aliens are of similar intelligence to us, and have has similar life experiences as your average human. who gave the most logical response?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
A point I wanted evidence for by my third post, but you still haz none.


I showed you evidence. 90% of scientists say "Evolution" is a fact AND a theory at the SAME time. You've seen the ex sources I provided, you even quoted some yourself. And they are saying it can be both at the SAME time. Wrong. Even if they say it can be either/or, they are still wrong.

I never heard of any theory called "Evolution". I heard of one called "The Theory of Evolution" or "Evolutionary Theory". I don't even agree it can be either/or. Although I'll concede to that, then we have to define it as theory or fact whenever it is used. My way is easier and more accurate and truthful. That is if you aren't trying to impose beliefs on someone.

It can only be one or the other depending on context. Not both.

I have no problem with the statement "The Theory of Evolution is not a fact". I know it's true. Evolutionists have a problem with it though, because it calls for them to admit it's theory not fact.

Evolution doesn't show or explain any transitions, or anything else. Evolution is a collection of facts. The deduction of any reason for these facts is Theory. Period. Just a theory. oh noes he called it "just" a theory. hehe

And yes by your third post you avoided saying my statement is correct by then arguing about whether it is a conspiracy or not.




[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join