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: 27
14
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
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.


But it wasn't a mistake, it's a perfectly acceptable usage, lol. When you used it, it appears you were well understood. I knew what you were trying to say, and I would guess most who have some insight into this area would to. At no point did it even appear you were even trying to say 'the theory of evolution is a fact' by using the word 'evolution'.

You have decided to represent it as a mistake and suggest some nefarious, but completely unsupported, motives, whilst spouting BS.

If it floats ya boat to show yourself as a deceptive and rather confused individual, that's cool as well.

Take care.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft
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


Thanks for the welcome!!!

I do remember actually, and I think if we keep it in context we will have no problems with discussing it.

I also agree "The Theory of Evolution" is the best workable theory we have. I don't believe it, but I do agree that I can't find a better theory.

Thanks again.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Sorry if it hurts your feelings. Which it must.

I didn't redefine it. Science did. The only word they've redefined as such. Weird.

Here's a question I asked earlier:

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

X can only be a fact, unless you redefine X.


If you don't agree with the conspiracy angle, that's fine. Then I don't have to be bothered showing you things you don't read.

Anyway, hope you have a great day!



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



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
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.


Yeah lol, that's why I said "90%". It was a joke. It's probably more like 99.9% of the population who would know the theory over the fact when presented with the word "evolution".



Originally posted by B.A.C.
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.


I seriously doubt that. It's most likely because of all the controversy evolution (the theory) has caused, and most people found it redundant to say "the theory of" every time (as most already knew it as the theory), just as I might find it redundant to say "the hypothesis of creationism", so they say "evolution" as I would likewise choose to say "creationism".


Oh, and for the icing on the cake:

www.merriam-webster.com...


Evolution, 4b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations ; also : the process described by this theory



www.thefreedictionary.com...


Evolution, 1. The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

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


Sorry if it hurts your feelings. Which it must.


Yeah, I'm, eerrr, devastated, lol.


I didn't redefine it. Science did. The only word they've redefined as such. Weird.


When did they redefine it? Did they have a meeting to decide? Perhaps it just happened that way.


If you don't agree with the conspiracy angle, that's fine. Then I don't have to be bothered showing you things you don't read.

Anyway, hope you have a great day!


Without evidence? About as inspiring as 'my brother was anal probed by a reptilian'. But it's killer of a conspiracy, all those scientists and evolutionists who service this dreadful conspiracy by making clear distinctions between the fact and theory. Arrest those scientists!

It's night here, but thanks anyway.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

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


theory of language - is language a theory or a fact
language theory - is language a theory or a fact


Wouldn't you say that it's a fact that there is a theory of language and that language is a fact?

Just like

It's a fact that there is a theory of evolution and evolution is a fact.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Yup I'm more than aware of the dual meaning Science uses for Evolution. Why give me quotes? It just proves what I'm saying.

Creationism isn't a theory or a hypotheses. Not yet anyway. Ask any Scientist or Evolutionist.


I agree it is probably more than 90% using this dual meaning.

Good work.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
Wouldn't you say that it's a fact that there is a theory of language and that language is a fact?


Theory of X - is X a fact? is X a theory? Answer that.

Yup I agree there is a "Theory" of Language. There is a "Fact" of language. But they are not the same.

Careful because Science says they aren't either. It's only with Evolution they use this dual meaning of "theory" and "Fact".



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Theory of X - is X a fact? is X a theory? Answer that.


X can be both a theory and a fact.



Yup I agree there is a "Theory" of Language. There is a "Fact" of language. But they are not the same.

Careful because Science says they aren't either. It's only with Evolution they use this dual meaning of "theory" and "Fact".


There is a theory of evolution. There is a fact of evolution. They're not the same and nobody apart from you has claimed otherwise.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yup I'm more than aware of the dual meaning Science uses for Evolution. Why give me quotes? It just proves what I'm saying.


lol, so then you do agree that evolution is a theory?

I find that odd, as you previously said:


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


Which is precisely why I gave you the definition of evolution in which the first words are "a theory".

You're starting to make even less sense than usual.

So you've already said that evolution is fact, and you just now agreed that evolution is also a theory.
So evolution is a theory and a fact.

Point made.
Debate over.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Creationism isn't a theory or a hypotheses.


Not in the scientific sense, but it is in the non-scientific sense.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


A theory is what it says just a thought, a possibility, a THEORY.

What I'm wondering about is this:
Suppose just suppose that both is true? That creation in itselves is both creation and evolution?
Isn't evolution just some kind of mutation?

Think about this .... instead of having 2 opposite opinions, 2 opposite camps, we could weave both theories into ONE outcome ......



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melyanna Tengwesta
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


A theory is what it says just a thought, a possibility, a THEORY.

What I'm wondering about is this:
Suppose just suppose that both is true? That creation in itselves is both creation and evolution?
Isn't evolution just some kind of mutation?

Think about this .... instead of having 2 opposite opinions, 2 opposite camps, we could weave both theories into ONE outcome ......


I don't think Creationism has anything to do with Evolution. I'm a Creationist, yet I believe in Evolution as fact. It's The Theory of Evolution I disagree with.

Although you may have something with Abiogenesis.



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



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 

No I didn't say I agree that Evolution is a theory. Science says it is, but I disagree. I could concede to that usage if we stated beforehand whether we were talking theory or fact. Though I still disagree with the whole concept of ONE fact, in all of science having this dual meaning.


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



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

reply to post by B.A.C.
It's The Theory of Evolution I disagree with.


I'm probably going to regret this but why?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

lol... It's just the opposite.

I know thats the popular opinion.


Scientists look for why.

Within contexts.

Theists say "This is how it happened" with no evidence whatsoever.
This allows them to ignore the questions.


no. thats why I inserted the phrase. "to the heart of the matter". As in when you get the cause of/reason for/explaination of why for actual existence the naturalists says "it just is. no cause"



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


By defenition, there can be no natural answer. Any answer would HAVE to be supernatural.




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

A guess is a better answer than a non answer.






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


No. so, are you saying "all we can see and detect" is a reaction?
Then I guess your not a naturalist.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

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).


A) have we observed the evolutionary change from the caused these two extremes in dogs?

B)Furthermore we know that such change is based on loosing genectic information and not gaining it. So its a poor example to put forth as the type of evolutionary changes needed to account for all the variation of life we currently have.

C) they are still dogs. Can you provide an observation of any one thing evolving into another kind of thing?


The points stands.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
Furthermore we know that such change is based on loosing genectic information and not gaining it. So its a poor example to put forth as the type of evolutionary changes needed to account for all the variation of life we currently have.


What is this "loosing genetic information" that you speak of? Change (in this case size) isn't about 'how much information' you have in your DNA, it's what the DNA says. There are types of rice, for instance, that have many times more DNA than in the human genome. There are species of amoeba with many times that again. Add to that, a lot of human DNA doesn't do anything.

It's not how much, it's what it says that counts.


they are still dogs. Can you provide an observation of any one thing evolving into another kind of thing?


They used to be wolves, but they're not anymore. Give them time, thousands of years and they could become genetically distinct again.

Can you define 'kind' and 'thing'?



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard

reply to post by B.A.C.
It's The Theory of Evolution I disagree with.


I'm probably going to regret this but why?


No need to regret a question. A good one at that.

I believe in God. I don't think the two are compatible. I know a lot of people will disagree on this (even creationists), but it's only my personal view. I also think that the theory leaves more questions than it answers IMO.

I believe I already know the truth. Same as an Evolutionist thinks he does. I don't have Science on my side though, I have belief (God can't be proven or disproven).


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



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I believe in God. I don't think the two are compatible.


Why?

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

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


I believe in God. I don't think the two are compatible.


Why.


Here's one example:
I don't believe there is any proof of any NEW species emerging from an already established species. I see pictures of different similar species lined up to look like they evolved, but that's just a best guess. I mean it's even difficult for scientists to "define" a species. Also, the modern theory comes up with it's own definition of the word "species". This theory likes to redefine words to fit the theory for some reason. I don't believe it.

I can give more examples if you wish, but I just don't think it is convincing enough for me is what it boils down to. Too many unanswered questions.



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



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join