Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact.

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.

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.

Originally posted by projectvxn
Oh god not this stupid argument again.

Learn how science works and read up on the latest peer-reviewed journals involving evolution. That's all I have to say.

I agree Evolution is a fact. People need to wake up.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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.

nope dont think your grasping this

an apple can be green, it can also be a cox's apple

evolution is a fact, evolution is a theory (theory of evolution title give it away)

the word evolution can be used either way with slightly different meanings implied to both and both still be 100% accurate

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

now dont be throwing your toys out of the pram

and i thought id get the religeous war starter labe for showing how your own deffinition howed god was a thoery not a fact as you had stated an repeately tried to get you to admit this simple honest fact, a your big on honesty and semantics

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]

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?

Whoa. Where did I claim my Theory/Hypotheses is a fact? Show me that.

That's exactly my point. I wouldn't do that.

reply to post by noobfun


very nice of you to give your opinion. i am ready to read your, or another's, answer to the arguments presented in that page. as far as birds and reptiles being the same thing, did you really read what i posted, or did you just skim through it because your not really interested in the other side of the coin? i have researched both sides, although I admit i am no scientist. i understand the difference between biology, and abiogenesis. you aren't dealing with someone who's just now started probing his own belief. i've question my faith, and i've lived the other side. i have looked at all the information, and as far as I can see, your fight club record should say 0-0. it is all left up to faith. there is absolutely nothing to prove that animals turn into other animals. as a matter of fact, there are many things that seem to say that is completely false. but I suppose it's a matter of how one interprets the facts.

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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.

nope dont think your grasping this

an apple can be green, it can also be a cox's apple

evolution is a fact, evolution is a theory (theory of evolution title give it away)

the word evolution can be used either way with slightly different meanings implied to both and both still be 100% accurate

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

now dont be throwing your toys out of the pram

and i thought id get the religeous war starter labe for showing how your own deffinition howed god was a thoery not a fact as you had stated an repeately tried to get you to admit this simple honest fact, a your big on honesty and semantics

OMG you need to look up "Scientific Fact" and Scientific Theory". Then get back to me.

Theory can NEVER be a fact. A theory is an explanation. A fact is a verifiable observation.

I'll use your analogy.

Here's my THEORY: "Apples can be both Green and Cox's Apples at the same time."

FACT - an apple can be green.
FACT - an apple can be Cox's
FACT - an apple can be green and cox's

All of these things become part of my THEORY. Where do you see my THEORY becoming FACT? It doesn't. You know why?

FACT - an apple can be green and have a bruise on it.

Wait a minute that wasn't part of my THEORY. So that MUST mean my THEORY wasn't FACT.

Science 101 Big Guy. First Year and everything.

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

reply to post by noobfun


as for a question that evolution can't answer, i'll give you three, but i already know what you will say.


1. what forces, outside or inside, constitute the need for a particular creature to change it's genetic makeup?

2. what is the internal mechanism that actually controls the evolutionary process once there is a need for change?

3. where did the first life actually come from?
(i know what you will say to this one, but if "life begets life" is true then this topic has great relevancy when discussing the theory of evolution)

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Whoa. Where did I claim my Theory/Hypotheses is a fact? Show me that.

That's exactly my point. I wouldn't do that.

I'll actually give you what you are asking for, which is more than you have done for me.

I bet 90% of Evolutionists and Scientists say The Theory of Evolution is fact. This is proof of the conspiracy.

So you take your hypothesis as proof. You make a hypothesis ('I bet 90% of Evolutionists and Scientists say The Theory of Evolution is fact'), and then it magically becomes evidence ('this is proof').

Later you say:

"I say I've already presented my proof", which I assume was your OP, lol. Your OP and thread makes the claim:

"Don't let them tell you that the theory of evolution is a fact".

No, it's the main argument used by Evolutionists. There are 35 pages of it in another thread in this section as proof.

This one little statement "The Theory of Evolution is a fact" will STOP someone from believing anything else. I'm not talking just belief in God, I'm talking about belief in other scientists as well. It isn't true. I can and have proved it. That's why it's VERY important to be perfectly clear.

The Theory of Evolution is not a fact. I proved it.

I also think that's why Evolutionists say "The Theory of Evolution is a Fact", to go against what they consider our silly belief in God instead of admitting that The Theory of Evolution is not a fact.

Because if I believe in the LIE that "The Theory of Evolution is a fact" you've got me beat. I can't argue something I agree with. This is what science taught you, this is the conspiracy.

Prove that 90% of scientists and 'evolutionists' are saying that 'the theory of evolution is a fact'.

I see people saying that evolution is both theory and fact, and your OP supports that.

Then when asked to present evidence you give stuff like this:

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

www.talkorigins.org...

Which just states exactly the same distinction you have already made. There are the facts of evolution and the theory.

Please, give it up or just support the claim...

90% of scientists and most 'evolutionists' are saying that 'the theory of evolution is a fact'.



[edit on 6-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by one_man24
reply to post by noobfun

 

very nice of you to give your opinion. i am ready to read your, or another's, answer to the arguments presented in that page.

ill have another look an see if i can actually find some arguments then,

can you point out a few that dont relie on logical fallacies, outright making stuff up, misusing or misrepresenting things then im prefectly willing to go do a little reearch if needed to supply probable answers

this perticular page i skimmed becasue well from the start it rubbish and nonsense,

its deffintion of micro evolution is shaky, its deffintion of macro evolution is nonsense, using c14 on rocks is as stupid as giving rose bushes hiv tests to check how well they work

fossalied tree's still partly standing .. wow thats .. nothing to do with evolution an just an example of a petrified tree

there is absolutely nothing to prove that animals turn into other animals. as a matter of fact, there are many things that seem to say that is completely false. but I suppose it's a matter of how one interprets the facts.

im confuse sorry ... animals turning into other animals ....

are we talking og into rabbits here?

or a lizard almost identicle to it parent giving birth to a lizard that almot indeticle to its parent ..and all those almost idneticles adding up to several thosand generations latter bieng very different from the first ... which is why birds are still reptiles an crocs are still reptiles(even though they were warm blooded)

pick the best argument you can find off that ite and u2u me ave hijacking the thread

1. what forces, outside or inside, constitute the need for a particular creature to change it's genetic makeup?

Individuals don't change their genomes. Evolution works on the level of populations.

2. what is the internal mechanism that actually controls the evolutionary process once there is a need for change?

Natural selection.

3. where did the first life actually come from?

The theory of evolution doesn't say a word about this. The scientific approach for this question goes by the name of "abiogenesis".

reply to post by melatonin


I gave you proof.

What you're saying is it can't be a conspiracy unless a large number take part? Wrong.

It only takes two to tango, look it up.

reply to post by iWork4NWO


something inside the creature, even if it is on a population level, controls the need for change. they obviously experience a hardship, climate change, lack of oxygen, whatever across multiple scenarious, so what inside of them controls the change, and makes sure it is desirable for survival?

and i knwo what abiogenesis is, and i knew you'd say that. but if you agree that life begets life, then you can't deny that our origins are important as far as evolution is concerned. if you are tracing an evolutionary record, wouldn't it lead you all the way back to the beginning?

reply to post by noobfun


I would have u2u you, but my u2u button seems to have disappeared

so i chose a few that i haven't heard an argument against before. don't feel pressured to address every single one, since it is a long list. if you're like me, your probably at work right now lol.

arguments 1, 3, 5, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 38, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49

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

This is a quote from you.

Now listen once again:

Evolution is a Scientific fact.

It is a part of The Theory of Evolution which is not a fact because it explains things, which is what Theories do.

Look it up.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I gave you proof.

What you're saying is it can't be a conspiracy unless a large number take part? Wrong.

It only takes two to tango, look it up.

You've given nothing. You gave links to articles which are quite able to make the distinction between fact and theory. Show me where they state 'the theory of evolution is a fact'.

Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory

bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...

Which is the same Larry Moran article as Talkorigins above. Then we have the Lenski article:

Evolution: Fact and Theory

www.actionbioscience.org...

Evolution as Fact and Theory

www.stephenjaygould.org...

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

www.abarnett.demon.co.uk...

Evolution: Fact Or Theory?
How Can It Be Both? What's the Difference?

atheism.about.com...

So each article go into details about the distinction, and are obviously quite clearly able to understand it.

None support your claim that the vast majority of scientists and evolutionists claim 'the theory of evolution is a fact'.

And I said absolutely nothing about how many are taking part in some supposed conspiracy you have based on semantics and your sleight of hand. I stated exactly what you claimed.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Blah blah

When you're ready to support the claim that 90% of scientists and evolutionists claim that 'the theory of evolution is a fact', go for it.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by B.A.C.

OMG you need to look up "Scientific Fact" and Scientific Theory". Then get back to me.

Theory can NEVER be a fact. A theory is an explanation. A fact is a verifiable observation.

i think someones sulking becasue god got downgraded to a hypothesis

the analogy wasnt very good, i didnt account for your need to apply semantics to everything except things you dont want to

apples can be green fact

apples grow on trees, both a fact and a theory becasue it is both an observation and an explenation of where those apples in the fruit bowl came from

your also failing to take into account

evolution, the theory of evolution and ToE are all interchangable in the usage in the same way jesus, christ and jesus christ can all be freeley interchanged to mean the same biblical figure

as i sai above both are accurate becasue both use the word slightly differently in thier meaning so evolution i both fact nd theory becasue the same word can be used for both meanings

something inside the creature, even if it is on a population level, controls the need for change.

Why?

and i knwo what abiogenesis is, and i knew you'd say that. but if you agree that life begets life, then you can't deny that our origins are important as far as evolution is concerned. if you are tracing an evolutionary record, wouldn't it lead you all the way back to the beginning?

I don't even know what "begets" means. Anyways I'm quite up to date on abiogenesis and the RNA world stuff and reckon that it's way logical. We still see lots of relics of the pre protein world in RNA funtions

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I gave you proof.

What you're saying is it can't be a conspiracy unless a large number take part? Wrong.

It only takes two to tango, look it up.

You've given nothing. You gave links to articles which are quite able to make the distinction between fact and theory. Show me where they state 'the theory of evolution is a fact'.

Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory

bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...

Which is the same Larry Moran article as Talkorigins above. Then we have the Lenski article:

Evolution: Fact and Theory

www.actionbioscience.org...

Evolution as Fact and Theory

www.stephenjaygould.org...

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

www.abarnett.demon.co.uk...

Evolution: Fact Or Theory?
How Can It Be Both? What's the Difference?

atheism.about.com...

So each article go into details about the distinction, and are obviously quite clearly able to understand it.

None support your claim that the vast majority of scientists and evolutionists claim 'the theory of evolution is a fact'.

And I said absolutely nothing about how many are taking part in some supposed conspiracy you have based on semantics and your sleight of hand. I stated exactly what you claimed.

Thanks for posting that. They all prove my point exactly.

If you say Evolution is both Fact AND Theory. You're wrong. Its a Lie.

1.Theory = explanation for a verifiable observation.
2. Fact = verifiable observation.

Clearly different things.

Fact = Theory? NO
Theory = Fact? NO

Simple math can confirm this:

1. Theory = 5
2. Fact = 8

Is 5 = 8? NO
Is 8 = 5? NO

That's the Lie. Every conspiracy has a Lie or multiple lies or deception.


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

reply to post by noobfun


I think his argument has disappeared up its own anus.

Perhaps he thinks repeating the same old distinction that others can clearly make parrot-like will somehow confuse a few rubes into accepting his dishonest shifting of goalposts.