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: 26
14
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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.


lol

You never showed that. It's like saying blue means a colour and a depressed mood - it doesn't mean a depressed mood is a colour. In each case you presented they went on to make the clear distinction between fact and theory.

Your claim was '90% of scientists and evolutionists say that the theory of evolution is a fact'.

And you haven't shown one person saying that. You're still being disingenuous, and I find that insulting. Well, tbh, I find it pathetic.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


OK, let's go with the "fact" OR "theory" idea.

I say "Evolution is not a fact" - speaking of the theory (even though there is no theory called "evolution" as you all claim)

You say "Evolution is a fact" - speaking of the fact (I agree that evolution is a fact)

We are BOTH right?

No, the whole idea is wrong. The whole reason for Science to present Evolution as "fact" and/or "theory" is so people can't question it. If I then say "Evolution" is not fact, speaking of the theory, you can say, but you admit it is.

Again I know of no theory called "Evolution" so they are wrong either way, and only came up with this idea about it being fact and/or theory to discredit Creationists or anyone else who would like to challenge the theory.

It's the only "fact and theory" associated with this idea of dual meanings. Wonder why?


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



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
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


Sorry but that's just bull#. Us, biologists (as a group) are not claiming that the theory of evolution is a fact. Obviously you're going to find delusional individuals, given there are quite a few of us, but your claim which somehow makes it seem as if there's somekind of major consensus that theory is a fact. That's just bull#. I'm involved in a research group where we very much want to disprove a little something concerning the theory..

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Originally posted by B.A.C.
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


Sorry but that's just bull#. Us, biologists are not claiming that the theory of evolution is a fact. I'm involved in a research group where we very much want to disprove a little something concerning the theory


Perfect, I really hope you do prove your little part of the theory wrong. I'd say this thread proves they do have a problem with it though. Or else why all the discussion? Nothing to discuss if you agree is there?



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



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Perfect, I really hope you do prove your little part of the theory wrong. I'd say this thread proves they do have a problem with it though. Or else why all the discussion? Nothing to discuss if you agree is there?
[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


Well it's more about the speculated past of a certain group of organisms but that's besides the point. I'd say the discussion in this thread comes mostly because of your lie that most people who understand what evolution is claim that the theory of evolution is a fact. We don't make that kind of claims. However we're quite sure that the theory is mostly right, our understanding of evolutionary history is mostly right.. about everything concerning evolution.. we mostly have it right.


Not to say that there still isn't a lot to be learned. Archaea for example. We really suck at growing them in labs, yet these tiny little things might have quite a big role in all terrestrial ecosystems..

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Again I know of no theory called "Evolution" so they are wrong either way, and only came up with this idea about it being fact and/or theory to discredit Creationists.


You did a few days back. Give it up.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK I'l be one of the religious nuts to respond


In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

The word is derived from Greek θεωρία theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation"

en.wikipedia.org...

Why don't I believe in evolution?

It is speculation.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
No I didn't refute General Relativity, I confirmed it (look up Straw Man), the OP's whole premise is that theories are more than speculation, which in most cases I agree with.

In the case of evolution the facts aren't known, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Point made.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK show me a FACT, just one FACT, not ALL, just ONE that is known about evolution.

Remember a FACT is VERIFIABLE.


Is this a setup too



Originally posted by B.A.C.

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

...

Regardless of your comments, evolution still has a LOT of proof behind it


Yes, it has a lot of proof, just not enough to be considered fact.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK I'm starting to see spots. I've been on this thread since 10 am this morning, it is now 2 am (16 hrs). While I've been working on client stuff from home, hopefully all their stuff will still run LMAO

Anyways, I'll continue on tomorrow.

Down with evolution (I'm on topic)


fact or theory?


Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by jfj123
 


Prove that evolution is a lie? Is that what this thread is coming to?


Gravitational Theory - explains the LAW of Gravity.

Electromagnetic Theory - explains the many LAWS of electricity.

But

The Theory of Evolution - attempts to explain it's own theory.

Cheers.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
So by Thursday you can PROVE evolution?

Go read many quotes by leading scientist that admit they have a LOT of the answers concerning evolution, but not ALL of the answers.

Is there evidence for evolution? Absolutely.

Is there lot's of evidence for evolution? Possibly.

Can you or anyone else say you have all the answers for evolution? Nope.

Therefore it is not fact yet. It is still just a theory, no matter how you'd like to redefine theory.

linky

A few days later...


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Is Evolution a fact? Yes


Evolution as fact and theory.


It's the only "fact and theory" associated with this idea of dual meanings. Wonder why?


Just to allow you to make inane threads which attempt to push lies?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Of course YOU don't agree with it, you're an Evolutionist.

Quote all you want.

Evolution is NOT a theory. I know of no theory called "Evolution"

Too bad if you don't like.

The Theory of Evolution isn't a fact. I know of no fact called "The Theory of Evolution"

Of course YOU don't agree. I wouldn't expect you to.

I realized everyone including myself was using the word "Evolution" as the theory behind it. I realized this is wrong. I admit I was making the same mistake. Science wants us to think "Evolution" is a theory, it isn't. Here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Quote all you want from a completely different thread. The problem with that thread was no one was making the distinction between fact and theory. I realized we should be, if we want to argue about it, we should keep it in context. The OP of that thread and I now agree that there should have been a distinction made. You're the only one with a problem still.

Again you argue about everything except these true statements, try to stick to the topic at hand.

The Theory of Evolution is NOT a fact. This is a lie?





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



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 



This really gets to the heart of the matter. A theist looks for "why"?, a naturalist ignores the question.


This is where naturalism is self defeating, IMO. When you trace back all the "why?" you are left with nothing but, "it just is". And you can't allow yourself to ask the next "why?". Because by definition that answer can only be found in the Supernatural.

A theist has that supernatural answer.

Of course, its fair for the naturalist to ask the theist "why do we have the supernatural?"

But then we are asking a different question all together. When it comes to the quesion of "why is what we can observe and detect the way it is?"

Given the properties of what we know, the simplest answer is that something outside it caused it to be so. Afterall, thats how all the things we know of came to be as we now see them.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 






Originally posted by B.A.C
I never heard of any theory called "Evolution". I heard of one called "The Theory of Evolution" or "Evolutionary Theory".





Here's the way I see it:

Evolution is both fact and theory: = Evolution is a fact = (observed scientific facts regarding changes of organisms over time)

and

Evolution is both fact and theory: = Evolution is a theory = ”the theory of evolution” or “"Evolutionary Theory".



-------



Here's the way you see it:


Evolution is both fact and theory = Evolution is a fact = (observed scientific facts regarding changes of organisms over time)

and

Evolution is both fact and theory = I never heard of any theory called "Evolution".

LOL



Don’t you think, for one moment, that they are talking about “Evolutionary Theory" or ”the theory of evolution” because that’s EXACTLY what they mean.

If you break the sentence down, “evolution” is the first primary word. They are saying evolution is both something and something else. Only the word evolution has two words connected to it. So Evolution is fact, which means.

Evolution = Fact = (observed scientific facts regarding changes of organisms over time)

Next part of the sentence….and evolution is theory, which means…

Evolution = evolution is a theory = ”the theory of evolution” or "Evolutionary Theory".

In the said sentence the word “fact” is not both evolution and theory and the word “theory” is not both evolution and fact, only the word “evolution” is both.

What I am saying is, that the words “fact” and “theory” are not connect to each other, they are only connected to the word “evolution”



- JC



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
When has anyone observed "evolution" working on the scale that the "theory of evolution" claims that it has been responsible for?


Thats what seperates the "theory of evolution" from the fact of evolution, IMO.

The observed fact of evolution is this...

"Very simple things have been observed to evolve into other similar, very simple things.

Very complex things have been observed to evlove very simple changes within those very complex things."


The "theory of evolution" is that these to facts, along with some other data lead to the idea that all variation of all life can be attributed to the same process that define the fact of evolution.

This part is still a theory, and should only be treated as such.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Call Evolution whatever you want to. I'll just be sure to ask if you are talking about "theory" or "fact" that's all. Since they are supposedly the same thing according to you.

The Theory of X - is X a theory? or a fact?


Nice.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
When has anyone observed "evolution" working on the scale that the "theory of evolution" claims that it has been responsible for?


Thats what seperates the "theory of evolution" from the fact of evolution, IMO.

The observed fact of evolution is this...

"Very simple things have been observed to evolve into other similar, very simple things.

Very complex things have been observed to evlove very simple changes within those very complex things."


The "theory of evolution" is that these to facts, along with some other data lead to the idea that all variation of all life can be attributed to the same process that define the fact of evolution.

This part is still a theory, and should only be treated as such.


Yes!!! Correct.

Good luck trying to explain that here though.

Starred.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
This really gets to the heart of the matter. A theist looks for "why"?, a naturalist ignores the question.


lol... It's just the opposite.
Scientists look for why.
Theists say "This is how it happened" with no evidence whatsoever.
This allows them to ignore the questions.



Originally posted by hulkbacker
This is where naturalism is self defeating, IMO. When you trace back all the "why?" you are left with nothing but, "it just is". And you can't allow yourself to ask the next "why?". Because by definition that answer can only be found in the Supernatural.


That's your opinion. Why could there not be a natural answer? You're assuming that there will be no natural answer.



Originally posted by hulkbacker
A theist has that supernatural answer.


Replace 'answer' with 'guess' and I'll agree.



Originally posted by hulkbacker
When it comes to the quesion of "why is what we can observe and detect the way it is?"

Given the properties of what we know, the simplest answer is that something outside it caused it to be so. Afterall, thats how all the things we know of came to be as we now see them.


Of course. There was a cause to the reaction.
Science attempts to understand the cause.
Theism attempts to guess.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Evolution is NOT a theory. I know of no theory called "Evolution"


You obviously forgot. You did a few days back.

The evidence is in the quotes above. You can dance around the evidence of your own words and usage, but its crystal.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
Given the properties of what we know, the simplest answer is that something outside it caused it to be so. Afterall, thats how all the things we know of came to be as we now see them.


Obviously you decided to IGNORE my response last time I posted it



Originally posted by 5thElement
Nature does not need an ULTIMATE or FIRST cause.

From the scientific point of view, infinite causality chain is as acceptable as finite one. Nothing contradicts it


Ultimate cause is only necessary when you try to fit concept of God in


So here it is, again, but in the form of question:

WHAT contradicts or makes infinite causality chain impossible ???



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Evolution is NOT a theory. I know of no theory called "Evolution"


Ask anyone on the streets if they believe in evolution.
Let's see what the majority believes "evolution" is referring to
(I'm going to pull a '90%' out of my arse, but it will probably be higher than that
).

What matters isn't the word but the meaning and the context - you fail to see that.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Evolution is NOT a theory. I know of no theory called "Evolution"


You obviously forgot. You did a few days back.

The evidence is in the quotes above. You can dance around the evidence of your own words and usage, but its crystal.



Yes, and I realized my mistake. I admit that. I've already admitted that. So why keep bringing it up? Is it because what I say NOW is right, and you don't want to agree?

I've NEVER said "Evolution" is a theory since I realized my mistake. In fact, the second I realized the mistake we were all making in that discussion, I made this thread.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Evolution is NOT a theory. I know of no theory called "Evolution"


Ask anyone on the streets if they believe in evolution.
Let's see what the majority believes "evolution" is referring to
(I'm going to pull a '90%' out of my arse, but it will probably be higher than that
).

What matters isn't the word but the meaning and the context - you fail to see that.


90% What a coincidence. I said 90% of Scientists are purposefully using this dual meaning to snuff any question of The Theory of Evolution, or to present it as fact. Weird.

What matters IS the meaning and context. Especially with Kids. Especially when no other fact has a dual meaning of "theory and fact". They do this with "Evolution" now, whats next?

You think Scientists started describing it this way by mistake? No, this was thought out to contradict anyone questioning the theory including other Scientists.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 





Originally posted by B.A.C
The Theory of X - is X a theory? or a fact?


LOL

That's a fair comment...and I have already admitted that the word "evolution" is a little confusing...
because of how it can be meant in two contexts, unlike most other scientific theories and facts.

If you think back to the other thread, I always made a clear distinction in all my posts between “evolution Fact” and the “theory of evolution” because I felt it was important to do so.

Remember, I was one of the firsts guys to admit on the other evolution thread that the "theory of evolution" was not a fact and I even took a bit of flack from other evolutionists. lol Although eventually a couple of die hards lol admitted the same thing.

PS- I believe in God but I accept that the "theory of evolution" is the best scientific theory we have to go on, at this moment in time. You were honest enough to admit your position on the other thread, so I thought I should do the same.


Welcome to ATS...




- JC



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
When has anyone observed "evolution" working on the scale that the "theory of evolution" claims that it has been responsible for?


Here. Don't try to give me the micro/macro bs. This is it. A major step.

And here's speciation:


These two having sex is equal to me trying to stick my penis inside a rat. Doesn't work (not that I've tried).


[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join