Evolution, It's only a theory

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
It's okay. We don't have to agree. Opinions on their own mean nothing. You need to be able to support your opinions. I did that (you failed to quote that part). Maybe you thought it ment nothing? IMO it's a lot more than what you just did there, but who cares.. just another opinion.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

Go back through all of my posts and visit all of my links I provided. There is plenty of support for my opinions.

The fact that Creation Scientists exist today, having little to no funding as compared to the evolution scientists , is evidence in itself.

[edit on 7/3/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by John Matrix

 

Circular thinking at it's finest.

I thought you would enjoy the intellectual stimulation. I'm still evolving, be patient.

Originally posted by Joecroft
The Facts:

A fact used to be a fact but it seems a fact is no longer a fact and that's a FACT! lol

Sorry about my last post, I meant that as a joke… but there was a deeper meaning to it.

I believe JPhish made an excellent point about facts, when he said the following:

Originally posted by JPhish
Let's say we blow up the earth.

Now what was once the earth exists as a bunch of asteroids in space

the earth no longer exists as a spherical object in space.

The fact changed in relation to time.

This is why static truths are hard to come by.

I absolutely agree static truths are hard to come by.

In your example the earth would no longer exist, so the phrase “the earth exist’s” would no longer be a fact, but we could say (assuming anyone was still alive lol ) that “the earth once existed” and that would be a fact.

Aren’t all facts whether scientific or dictionary definition, subject to change over time?

The best way I can look at this question is to say that observed fact’s, that have happened in the past (assuming time travel is not possible lol ) remain a fact i.e. they are not subject to change.

The “theory of evolution” however is subject to possible change.

From the free online dictionary:

Fact definition link

Fact

Noun

1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed
2. a truth that can be proved from experience or observation

I guess the big question is, is the "theory of evolution" true, based on observations. I dont think anyone can say it is the absolute complete truth, so therefore it is not a fact, in dictionary definition terms.

Science as we know, however, seems to have a slightly different meaning and relaxed perspective on the word “fact” whereby they accept that facts can change and the new facts will just be updated.




- JC

This is kinda related to the topic of evolution since both deal with the origins of man. It's worth a look.

www.youtube.com...

Sorry, not going to work. You, yourself have verified my assumption which makes my assumption CORRECT.
Stop trying to deflect to protect your faith

Originally posted by atlasastro

Yes, I think it is more appropriate that ANDRE abandon this thread as he has a poor understanding of the topic

Actually he's shown a very good understanding of the topic. Your failure to recognize this shows your lack of understanding.

and I suspect his original motivation was to use the theory of Evolution as a vehicle to attack certain sections of the ATS population that believe in GOD and creationism or ID.

Almost nobody here has attacked religion in any way. Your perception of the attack is your problem. This isn't about religion, this is about science. There is a difference.

It is increasingly obvious that Andre is using ET to support his own beliefs that are contrary to that of religion.

From what I've read, he isn't posting his beliefs but just factual information based on scientific observation.
And, you've decided that evolution is contrary to that of religion. That's your problem but it still doesn't change that the theory of evolution is real and is supported by scientific evidence.

But this is just a theory I have made from observations......

funny irony

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by atlasastro

 

LOL, i used to think aliens were real but don't any more. So we can clear that up ok. I was idiotic believing in aliens when i did - i got smarter and realized god and aliens are the same bs.

Although statistically speaking, there probably is alien life somewhere in the universe, I'm assuming you're referring to visiting alien life and things like the reptilians, nordics and whatever else peoples imaginations tend to conjure.

Originally posted by Fromabove
To the OP. So what's the point. There can be separate theories using the same tangible evidence. I could say just as theoretically that God created the universe and life as you could say that it just all happened all on it's own just because. This debate is far from over.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Fromabove]

Actually no you couldn't say, "theoretically that god created the universe" as you have no evidence to support that statement as a theory. I guess you could call it a hypothesis but not a theory.

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
delusions of grandeur

I am light years ahead of putting my faith in an ideology that requires the kind of tunnel vision one must acquire to believe in the "From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo" Darwitt teachings.

[edit on 7/3/09 by John Matrix]

I like the way you mock the theory of evolution yet you've never been able to post any scientific evidence to discredit it
It seems that your beliefs and perceptions are more important to you then factual data. You're also failing to realize that your faith and evolution do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.

I find it amusing that you are trying to taunt those who understand evolution by calling them darwitts. You come up with a thinly veiled insult to avoid getting spanked by the mods. The simple fact that you're getting pleasure by repeating this silly insults shows that you're simply not mature enough to have an adult discussion about the subject of this thread. But please keep posting as I find each new post more amusing then the last

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by John Matrix

 

Oh merely pointing out both camps are taking an absolutist view in a necessarily variable world.

Evolution as I think you have said before evolution can exist along side creation. Only the black and white polarists of both camps say otherwise.

And I respect your view as well and appreciate your respect.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Sure hypothetically they could exist along side each other, but the point here is that the theory of evolution has evidence to support it while creationism has no evidence to support it.

Originally posted by jfj123
Sure hypothetically they could exist along side each other, but the point here is that the theory of evolution has evidence to support it while creationism has no evidence to support it.

How many times do I have to explain to you that creation science uses the same evidence as proof for creation, and they do it without having to skirt issues with secondary assumptions?

Do you think evolutionists own the evidence so that creationists can't examine it?

[edit on 7/3/09 by John Matrix]

Originally posted by jfj123
I find it amusing that you are trying to taunt those who understand evolution by calling them darwitts.

Sorry, I thought I changed that word back to evolutionists. I'll go check.

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by jfj123
Sure hypothetically they could exist along side each other, but the point here is that the theory of evolution has evidence to support it while creationism has no evidence to support it.

How many times do I have to explain to you that creation science uses the same evidence as proof for creation, and they do it without having to skirt issues with secondary assumptions?

Do you think evolutionists own the evidence so that creationists can't examine it?

[edit on 7/3/09 by John Matrix]

Oh then by all mean explain the evidence that supports creationism as a theory.
Using the scientific method and in detail please.
Also please define creationism.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123
Oh then by all mean explain the evidence that supports creationism as a theory. Also please define creationism.

I'm quite tired at the moment. Mona wore me out.

Creationism: the scientific study of the same evidence that evolutionist scientists use to explain their theory, but instead such evidence is used to explain creation. Creationists believe the Universe began as a result of a thought in the mind of the Creator which resulted in a Big Bang.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea that the universe may have been started by some omniscient being (not sure whether I believe that or not) but that's different then the evolution that has occurred AFTER the beginning of the universe.
Your point is the same point I've been trying to make for awhile for those who are religious. The point is that you can believe that an omniscient being could have created the universe and allowed it to evolve as they orchestrated it from the beginning. That idea doesn't require ANY interference by said being yet allows for the theory of evolution to be real and credible.

reply to post by John Matrix


I took a look, Mr. Matrix.

While it is compelling....I feel that it (the video) actually diminishes the 'Creation' myth, as proposed by strict Bible believers...i.e., that the Earth and the entire Universe is only about 6,000 years old.

Plate Tectonics is a science that is not a guess, it has been studied extensensively.

I just can't see, or believe, the entire crust of the Earth 'shifting', as a whole. But, stranger things have happened.

Even IF, as the video suggests, the crust can move about 2,000 miles in a short time....think about it for a moment.

How fast DID it move those 2,000 miles? At 1 MPH? at 10 MPH?

Think about the incredible amount of mass involved....and Newton's Laws of motion, and inertia.....

It is common to picture the Earth's crust 'floating' on the mantle beneath, as if it was kelp floating on the ocean.

This is way too simplistic, in my view.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Plate Tectonics is a science that is not a guess, it has been studied extensensively.

The growing earth theory has thrown a wrench into what scientists had assumed for a long time about continental drift and plate tectonics

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

I posted to other videos several pages back.


[edit on 7/3/09 by John Matrix]

What a shame I stumbled into this thread so late. I would have loved to once again stood beside Aerm... and others

Yet again it is obvious that very few (if any) people have a firm grasp of what the scientific method really is. I have read all 49 pages and yet again I observe Evos spouting how science has ‘proven evolution’, ‘Mountains of evidence for’ etc. In reality they have probably googled a few sites and gained second-hand knowledge from people who have little or no experience in true scientific method, research and testing. They then create arguments based upon fallacies. The problem is, both parties get suckered into the ignorance debate. I suggest that those of you who are truly interested in truth please listen and you will forever see the erroneous premises purported. Creationists; concentrate on the methodology and don’t get bogged down in ‘facts’ which are generally born out of invalid and/or unreliable methods.

There are two (2) things that need to be addressed:

Firstly, Micro-evolution (MiE) and Macro-evolution (MaE) are separate and independent theories, yet evos assume they are one.

MiE: ‘natural selection’ within a species through mating. This inevitably results in a loss of genetic information from the gene pool. Examples are dog breeding, Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Isle etc.

MaE: This theory postulates that from inanimate elements to ‘simple’ one cell life-forms to what we are and observe today occurred by increasing the genetic pool through mutations, genetic drift and other phenomena over vast periods of time.

And the difference between Operational Science (OS) and Historical Science (HS):

OS is methodology that obtains data of the present so predictions about future behaviour and/or occurrences can be predicted with a degree of confidence. This is observable ‘hard’ evidence and is responsible for majority of MiE evidence.

So how does OS work? (in easy terms)

1. State a working or null hypothesis
2. Apply working definitions for the important terms (hence zero ambiguity when repeating the test)
3. Formalise the independent variable(s) you wish to test
4. Ensure a baseline is present
5. Formulate the experiment free from confounding
6. State the Confidence level (alpha) for variance (usually 95% min)
7. Establish a significant/reliable and valid sample
8. Perform Test
9. Analyse data
10. Draw conclusions
11. Reject or accept the null hypothesis
12. Re-examine hypothesis/testing procedures
13. Re-test if necessary

That is a very basic breakdown of the OS method that people are alluding too. Problem is… They confuse THAT with HS. OS is indeed about the facts, zero leaps of inference, provable and re-testable experiments.

HS on the other hand is about probability/best guess/assumptions/inference etc. Oh if you read up on the Historical method you may come across ‘observable data’, but this is NOT in the same context as the above OS. Also HS has huge sections of ‘eyewitness evidence’… there is no rigorous and reliable method to predict past events. Poignant to note that the further one travels back to form postulations, the more unreliable the results will be. In other words, you make assumptions based on what you believe and in general ‘make the data fit’ to one’s pre-conceived assumptions. This is not observable and very ‘soft’ evidence at best. This is where virtually all of the Theory of MaE does and must apply.

to be cont'd

cont'd

But there are other MAJOR flaws and assumptions at play which evos take for granted and detractors rarely pick up with constant verve: Fallacies and clear non sequiturs

1) The Theory of Evolution non sequitur:

If MiE is true, then MaE is true
MiE is True
Thus MaE is true

Absurd isn’t it?

And this.

True for Species 1, then true for all species
Species 1 is true
Then all is true

2) Scientific Method non sequitur:

If OS is true, then HS is true
OS is true
Thus HS is true.

These are the fundamental fallacies that are taken for granted FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE and I constantly shake my head in disbelief.

So what does it all means?

‘mountains of evidence’ and ‘lots of proof’ statements derive from OS methods used upon MiE. And quite frankly, it is undeniable. However this is all evos tend to put forth and they rely on the non sequiturs to apply evidence from OS of MiE applies also to the HS of MaE and hence the Theory of Evolution (the whole of it) has massive evidence and is a fact! Think about it… that’s not scientific or honest.

Now there IS a lot of observable data (OS) for MiE, and in a short period of time. Dog breeding all occurs within the same kind/species. Darwin’s finches were the same… all within easily the last 150 years. It is indisputable. But it does not prove MaE.

In fact there is so little evidence for MaE. Think about it, if there is abundant evidence in the last 150 years for MiE, then logic can dictate (oops am I creating another non sequitur?) that more evidence must exist for MaE than the spurious thin and VERY soft evidence supposedly exists (and most are fraudulent!)

So next time a debate rages, look and see the initial premise of whether they are referring to MiE or MaE and/or attributing the correct scientific method to the right theory

here's a better one that shows the growing earth model:

www.youtube.com...