The most astounding fact!

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





They are building blocks of life, but on their own, they are NOT "life". If they were, you'd read "scientists found life in outer space" in every single newspaper on the planet


you are correct. I shall give thee a star.... but still evolution is not a fact biologists have rejected ‘Darwinism' and no longer agree with ideas put forth by Darwin and co....


Could you let us know what you understand Darwinism to be? Because the meaning of the word changed drastically since it first popped up.

If you think of "Darwinism" as the "theory of evolution"...well...clearly you're wrong




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
you are correct. I shall give thee a star.... but still evolution is not a fact biologists have rejected ‘Darwinism' and no longer agree with ideas put forth by Darwin and co....


Why is it hard for people to realize that Evolution in and of itself is a fact? Descent with modification, the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next, etc. is true. You can look at vaccinations towards viral diseases like the flu. Why do you think you're always getting a new vaccination every year? Supposing you do of course; I had to get one every year in the military.

You can disagree with the theory of evolution as it's the best explanation we have of how life has come to be as we know it today. Just stop saying Evolution is not a fact when it clearly is.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 





Why is it hard for people to realize that Evolution in and of itself is a fact? Descent with modification, the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next, etc. is tru


Descent with modification has been observed. However what has never been observed is the occurrence of speciation. That is the creation of a new species of sub species. Funny that with all the billions of organisms on the earth if random selection caused speciation you would expect to be able to see the results now..

No scienitst has ever observed speciation in action...



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


When you refer to speciation, do you mean a cat turning into a dog or one species developing genetic differences to the point where they can no longer mate with the original species?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 





However what has never been observed is the occurrence of speciation.


Wrong again...it's been observed both in the lab and in nature


LINK

And here's a more detailed article listing a lot of examples of observed speciation: LINK



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The link you provided is misleading it is not an example of speciation. It is hoped by evolutionists that it will lead to it..
Whist at university I was given an example of a moth that evolved from one species to another, by the time I had finished my course this had been debunked..

You are clutching at straws my friend...




It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:


www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
It would seem that how something works is the theory, that it exists is the fact.

Maybe.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Jameela
Theory is not fact


Here's what a scientific theory is...not far from the colloquial use of "fact"


In this case, we have actually observed and tested this, so we KNOW how those molecules come to be.
edit on 5-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Except that scientific theory, is accepted as "fact" until new information disproves the theory. Seems like when new scientific discoveries are made, it creates more questions than it answers.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


This is nothing new to me!!
My parents have always told me I'M A STAR!!!




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Not sure why we're talking about evolution...as it's completely off-topic...however:



The link you provided is misleading it is not an example of speciation.


It provides more than once concrete example that clearly prove we have evidence of speciation...and that we observed it both in nature and the lap. Claiming otherwise simply means you're ignoring that evidence...which seems to be the case


Anyway, as I said, this topic has NOTHING to do with evolution...so back on subject please or I'll have to start flagging posts, and I hate doing that.
edit on 6-3-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ltinycdancerg
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


This is nothing new to me!!
My parents have always told me I'M A STAR!!!



Hahaha, same here...but sadly we aren't...we're simply made of the guts of dying stars, big difference. Wish our parents were right though, would make my life a bit easier I guess. I could wear ridiculous clothes and do stupid stuff...and when people complain, I could tell them to simply f-off



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 



I agree with what you are saying too. It is not important to know what bricks are made of in all cases. But if you are going to to state you understand the inner workings of something and claim that is a fact then I would expect you to be able to demonstrate you have an understanding of the topic at a foundation level. The OP has made no such demonstration and neither has the scientific community.

Actually, it has been shown that new elements are created in stars.


Yes we belief that molecules are created inside stars but that does not mean we understand what these building blocks actually are and what they are made of.

Maybe you are simply asking a question that does not have to be answered. Do we need to know if a building includes wiring and plumbing to decide it is a building? Do we need to know if the building is composed of soft or hard brick to decide if it is a building?


So for the OP to state that evolution is fact is plain wrong.

I disagree. Evolution is a fact. The problem is determining a theory that describes the fact of evolution. The fossil record makes it abundantly clear that at one time there were huge oceans with no fish. Life changed and there were fish. The fossil record makes it abundantly clear that at one time there no mammals. Life changed so that now we have mammals. These are facts. How did this come about is the reason for the theories.


There are many scientists who disagree with the principles of evolution on a fundamental level.

There really are only a few, but numbers do not matter. Regardless of the fact that few scientists do not think evolution is a fact does not mean they are wrong. The issue is the evidence.


Gravity and therm dyanimcs are theories. The possess usefulness because they facilitate us in our everyday lifes. That does not make them facts nor does it mean we should not use them...

Gravity is the force that draws objects with mass together. Gravity is a fact. It is easy to demonstrate that gravity exists. There is a theory about gravity that describes how it works. That theory is constantly tested with predictions of the movements of objects in the solar system. That theory is well tested and it works very well.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


600 scientists is a drop in the bucket. There are millions of scientists in the world. They do research for companies and governments all over the world.


please feel free to continue to blindly follow what you have been taught without questioning it...

Frankly, I think this describes you. I am hearing more of a scoffer than a skeptic. I might be wrong.

Part of the problem I see is the continued lack of understanding of theory and fact. A fact is something believe to be true. It is worked out by experimentation and tested again and again. Sure mistakes are made and facts turn out not to be facts, but that is not the norm. Such cases are highly touted. The overwhelming bulk of facts continue to be facts. A theory is used to explain facts. Theories are not facts. Theories are based on facts.

Look up how these terms are used in science to get a better feel than I gave provide in a post.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 



Yes they do contain energy that is why when you split an atom you get a large release of energy...

Not exactly. If you split helium you lose energy. You get energy out if you fuse nuclei leading to iron and you get energy out if you split above iron.

edit: But you may want to not believe this because it is based on a theory
edit on 6-3-2012 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 



Science does not work on fact as I stated earlier it works on falsification.

This is wrong. To be a scientific theory there must be means of falsifying the theory.

I think we are back to a general confusion on the meanings of terms used in science.

For a dopey example, I can have a theory that the Moon is made of cheese. I might use the facts of its color and apparent shape. I could potential falsify this theory by going to the Moon and obtaining a sample.

I cannot have a theory that when I sleep I am awake in an alternate universe that can only be reached in my dreams. There is no way to way to test this to see if it is false.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 



You are correct molecules can create or use energy in their formation. No atoms dont create energy unless they are split. Isotopes (unstable atoms) will release energy over a period of time.

Nuclear fission does not create energy. If the nuclei is an element above iron then energy is released, not created.


On a fundamental level atoms are made of vibrations or waves.

Whether or not this is correct has no bearing on where elements are created.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 



you are correct. I shall give thee a star.... but still evolution is not a fact biologists have rejected ‘Darwinism' and no longer agree with ideas put forth by Darwin and co....

Evolution is a fact. Although the form of evolutionary theory proposed by Darwin has been modified with new findings there is still a strong evolutionary theory that describes the fact of evolution.

There might be a few creationists out there that have their close minded heads in the sand, but that's ok. They can and should act like the rest of the scientists that test evolutionary concepts regularly. The difference between the two groups is that the close minded creationists refuse to look at the results of their tests while the biologists continue to refine evolutionary theory as more is learned.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


There is a moth in Hawaii that exclusively eats banana plants. The moth and its relatives are indigenous to the Hawaiian islands yet bananas were introduced 500 years ago. Clearly, this moth was not sitting on the islands praying and praying for food. This moth developed in response to a new environmental niche.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Ouch.

More posts are appearing that confuse how theory and fact are used in scientific work. Folks, please get the terms straight even if you think you know what it means.

If you think theory means guess or speculation then you need to look up the terms.
If you think that fact means truth then you need to look up the terms.
If you think facts come from theories then you need to look up the terms.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Just how like evolutionists keep changing their MO every time a creationist points out inherent gaps in their theory?

The only thing you guys have proved is that natural selection occurs on a small stage. There is no evidence that natural selection works on atrophy of limbs or entire biological systems.





top topics
 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join