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

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Intellectual dishonesty? That's laughable.

I'm trying to make sure people use honesty when describing a theory.

I'm waiting with baited [sic] breath on your next reply.

And I'm trying to make sure the nakedness of the emperor is clear whilst harvesting lulz.

You haven't shown even one person being dishonest when distinguishing between a theory and fact. I'm sure you could if you tried, wouldn't surprise me to find a few people make the error without justifying their position. I've even tried to open up a discussion of the sort of things scientists say about evolution to find these problems. But you'd rather keep parroting the obvious to let your BS slide by.

The only dishonesty in this thread is the notion of "them tell[ing] you that the 'theory of evolution' is a fact", where 'them' is the vast majority of scientists and evolutionists.

The very claim you are making, apart from statements of the bleedin' obvious.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Intellectual dishonesty? That's laughable.

I'm trying to make sure people use honesty when describing a theory.

I'm waiting with baited [sic] breath on your next reply.

And I'm trying to make sure the nakedness of the emperor is clear whilst harvesting lulz.

You haven't shown even one person being dishonest when distinguishing between a theory and fact. I'm sure you could if you tried, wouldn't surprise me to find a few people make the error without justifying their position. I've even tried to open up a discussion of the sort of things scientists say about evolution to find these problems. But you'd rather keep parroting the obvious to let your BS slide by.

The only dishonesty in this thread is the notion of "them tell[ing] you that the 'theory of evolution' is a fact", where 'them' is the vast majority of scientists and evolutionists.

The very claim you are making, apart from statements of the bleedin' obvious.

Science DOES make the claim. Google "Theory and Fact". The ONLY theory you will find associated with this is Evolution.

You yourself say Evolution is theory and fact. The Theory of Evolution EXPLAINS Evolution. Evolution ISN'T a theory. The Theory of Evolution is the theory.

It's a very simple point I'm making.
The point of my OP and the responses in my thread are that Evolution is NOT a theory, in other words The Theory of Evolution is NOT a fact. There is a theory explaining Evolution called The Theory of Evolution.

It is not both, scientists say it is.

Whether scientists say Evolution is both fact AND theory. Or whether they say The Theory of Evolution is a fact. It is the same thing.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Another reformed Bible Thumper here. I also found that the questioning of everything and making up my mind to try to conform my beliefs and understanding to the available evidence rather than the more typical process of manipulating the evidence to fit my beliefs forced me to abandon my belief in the bible as the inerrant inspired word of God.

The two fundamental things I could no longer work up the effort to justify were the violent, genocidal, misogynistic and contradictory depiction of God in the bible and the need to deny, twist or beat into submission observable evidence and the well established and functional principles of science in order to accept the bible's (that is not not to say some Christians - not all believe it literally - not by a long shot) cration account.

In the time since I gave up that futile effort I have yet to hear a single argument against evolution that I didn't make myself. All the while knowing they were hollow.

Tit for tat arguments are a waste of time but let me just point out a few things.

1. By definition there can be no "scientific" argument for origins that includes supernatural explanations. Therefore anyone who points to any form of creationism that claims to be equally "scientific" as evolution, or more so, is wrong. Period. If you prefer to believe in some version of the biblical creation story, just say so and don't try to pretend there is some factual, scientific basis for your belief. Be honest about it. It's OK.

If you want to interject some other religious explanation, go for it. If you want to try to unite the Divine with a rational understanding then welcome, friend, let's work together.


2. By it's very nature evolution is a process that requires vast stretches of time to produce results. To demand that these processes be duplicated and reproduced in a lab is a dishonest argument because it is impossible. Does that make evolution non scientific? No. For one thing because it posits only rational - as opposed to supernatural - processes, explainations and entities.

3. Do not confuse a scientific theory with a hypothesis. Relativity and quantum mechanics are also theories yet their explanations and the undertstandings they have led to are the reasons we have functioning computers to do this on, GPS, and all the technology we enjoy.

Are Relativity, Quantum and Evolution theories complete and unchanging? Of couse not. They don't claim to be. That's a vast difference between science and religion. There is no divine revelation in science. There is no unmovable dogma - though there certainly are dogmatic stick in the muds all over. Nevertheless it is a process that assumes that knowledge and understanding will grow over time.

As for the young earth creationists and the Creation Museum crowd? It's their money to piss away. Hey, if you want to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Great Green Arkesleisure it's OK with me. Unless, of course you want to force your version of "reality" on the rest of us by demanding your religious myths be taught in public schools or be the basis for justice in this country. Believe what you want but do no harm.

Oh, and please deal with facts and reasonable argument from them. That includes understanding the terms you use and correctly representing the other side of the argument.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Henry Fnord]

First let's look at the Scientists making the claim Evolution is BOTH fact and theory.
Google Search - "Evolution THEORY and FACT" (Part of the conspiracy)
www.talkorigins.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.actionbioscience.org...
www.stephenjaygould.org...
geneticsevolution.suite101.com...




Now I'll show the controversy arising from this claim:
Google Search - "Evolution THEORY OR FACT" (Part of the controversy)
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...
atheism.about.com...
emporium.turnpike.net...
www.evolutionnews.org...
www.youtube.com...
www.eram.k12.ny.us...
www.discovery.org...
evolgen.blogspot.com...
www.apologeticspress.org...




There is proof above for anyone able to see that there is a controversy over the claim by Scientists that Evolution is BOTH a fact and a theory.

The claim is refuted not only by us crazy Creationists but even by other Scientists.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Science DOES make the claim. Google "Theory and Fact". The ONLY theory you will find associated with this is Evolution.

You yourself say Evolution is theory and fact. The Theory of Evolution EXPLAINS Evolution. Evolution ISN'T a theory. The Theory of Evolution is the theory.

Yes, the theory of evolution. And there are the facts of evolution. Well done, now you've performed the obligatory parroting of the accepted terms.

Evolution has a theory and it has facts.

It's a very simple point I'm making.
The point of my OP and the responses in my thread are that Evolution is NOT a theory, in other words The Theory of Evolution is NOT a fact. There is a theory explaining Evolution called The Theory of Evolution.

It is not both, scientists say it is.

No, what you claim is that scientists and evolutionists state "the theory of evolution is a fact".

Again with the sleight of hand. All the evidence you have presented shows scientists and others making a very clear distinction between the fact and theory.

None make the claim you say they do. They do say evolution is fact and theory. And they justify such a claim by making the distinction.

Your thread does not claim "don't let them tell you that evolution is fact and theory".

Whether scientists say Evolution is both fact AND theory. Or whether they say The Theory of Evolution is a fact. It is the same thing.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

No, it's not.

When/if you understand the difference, then you will know where your sleight of hand is - but I'm fairly sure you know already. Those who say evolution is fact and theory are very clear in making the distinction. For example, Gould...

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 do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, 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.

The distinction is made. No conflation of theory and fact. The term evolution has numerous meanings in the real-world, but in biology it clearly has two - the facts of evolution and the theory.

Your game is pretty transparent.

ABE:

You've posted most the fact and theory articles before, they all make the clear distinction, just like Gould.

There is proof above for anyone able to see that there is a controversy over the claim by Scientists that Evolution is BOTH a fact and a theory.

The worst that can be said is that it's messy. But words are like that. Again, this is a retreat from your original claim - fair enough, I guess you can't support it.

I'll take one of your 'controversy'-inducing articles (I'm ignoring the creationists ones, as who cares what they think, lol).

There is no one "theory of evolution."

Yeah, could be said to be true. So evolution has 'theories' then.

Evolution is both facts and theories.

Better?




[edit on 7-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Science DOES make the claim. Google "Theory and Fact". The ONLY theory you will find associated with this is Evolution.

You yourself say Evolution is theory and fact. The Theory of Evolution EXPLAINS Evolution. Evolution ISN'T a theory. The Theory of Evolution is the theory.

Yes, the theory of evolution. And there are the facts of evolution. Well done, now you've performed the obligatory parroting of the accepted terms.

Evolution has a theory and it has facts.

It's a very simple point I'm making.
The point of my OP and the responses in my thread are that Evolution is NOT a theory, in other words The Theory of Evolution is NOT a fact. There is a theory explaining Evolution called The Theory of Evolution.

It is not both, scientists say it is.

No, what you claim is that scientists and evolutionists state "the theory of evolution is a fact".

Again with the sleight of hand. All the evidence you have presented shows scientists and others making a very clear distinction between the fact and theory.

None make the claim you say they do. They do say evolution is fact and theory. And they justify such a claim by making the distinction.

Your thread does not claim "don't let them tell you that evolution is fact and theory".

Whether scientists say Evolution is both fact AND theory. Or whether they say The Theory of Evolution is a fact. It is the same thing.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

No, it's not.

When/if you understand the difference, then you will know where your sleight of hand is - but I'm fairly sure you know already. Those who say evolution is fact and theory are very clear in making the distinction. For example, Gould...

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 do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, 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.

The distinction is made. No conflation of theory and fact. The term evolution has numerous meanings in the real-world, but in biology it clearly has two - the facts of evolution and the theory.

Your game is pretty transparent.

Here is from the above quote:

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.

I say NO it isn't BOTH a fact and a theory. So do lots of other scientists (links on my last post, if you bothered to look). Evolution isn't a theory. That simple.



[edit on 7-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Here is from the above quote:

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.

I say NO it isn't BOTH a fact and a theory. So do lots of other scientists (links on my last post, if you bothered to look). Evolution isn't a theory. That simple.

I was typing while you posted it. Relax. I edited before I saw this one, lol.

You say 'No!', other people say 'Yes!'.

When you are the king of science, you can determine what is right and wrong. As for other scientists, I took the evolgen one, as I know his blog, he sees 'theories of evolution'.

Therefore, from his perspective evolution has facts and theories.

ABE:

So do lots of other scientists (links on my last post, if you bothered to look)

Now I'll show the controversy arising from this claim:
Google Search - "Evolution THEORY OR FACT" (Part of the controversy)
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk... [1]
atheism.about.com... [2]
emporium.turnpike.net... [3]
www.evolutionnews.org... [4]
www.youtube.com... [5]
www.eram.k12.ny.us... [6]
www.discovery.org... [7]
evolgen.blogspot.com... [8]
www.apologeticspress.org...[9]

Links 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 are not scientists. Link 3 and 9 are creationists, 4 & 7 are from the Lawyer creationist, Casey Luskin. Link 6 is a school webpage that say evolution is fact and theory. I can't be bothered watching the video, but i'm sure it's just more rubbish.

So much for the controversy. Another creationist manufactroversy perhaps?


[edit on 7-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Here is from the above quote:

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.

I say NO it isn't BOTH a fact and a theory. So do lots of other scientists (links on my last post, if you bothered to look). Evolution isn't a theory. That simple.

I was typing while you posted it. Relax. I edited before I saw this one, lol.

You say 'No!', other people say 'Yes!'.

When you are the king of science, you can determine what is right and wrong. As for other scientists, I took the evolgen one, as I know his blog, he sees 'theories of evolution'.

Therefore, from his perspective evolution has facts and theories.

Exactly. I agree with you on this post. All the way.

It is called "The Theory of Evolution" though, and not "The Theories of Evolution". Just to clarify.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
It is called "The Theory of Evolution" though, and not "The Theories of Evolution". Just to clarify.

So you disagree with evolgen?

I also edited my last post again. I'll let you catch up.

reply to post by B.A.C.


hey sweet pea maybe you shoudl unbunch those panties stop showing your as dogmatic at making an holding on to rediculous assertions as your claiming others do

shall we look at those links

In reality, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

To understand how it can be both, it is necessary to understand that evolution can be used in more than one way in biology. A common way to use the term evolution is simply to describe the change in the gene pool of a population over time; that this occurs is an indisputable fact. Such changes have been observed in the laboratory and in nature. Even most (although not all, unfortunately) creationists accept this aspect of evolution as a fact.

atheism.about.com...

wait so it can be both thoery and fact but not at the same time as we have been saying all along ....

but wait what this scientists say this?? i believe the accusation was.. now i know your having a laugh

2 of your links are to the dishonesty instute .. no not science ID dribbling fanatics
www.discovery.org...

www.evolutionnews.org...


another 1 is a bunch of the usual creationist quote mines and nothing to do with science

emporium.turnpike.net..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...['url]

By Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Copyright (c) 1993 by the Missouri Association for Creation ...
[url][emporium.turnpike.net...

more creationist sillyness
www.apologeticspress.org...

so infact 80% of your links are creationist rubbish and the other 2 differenciate quite clearly why evolution can be both fact and theory just not at the same time

wow more of your dishonesty unless the op has now changed to show how creationist are doing this to further thier dishonest views and bolster thier weak faith?

and im still waiting for the appology you owe me or evience for those claims you dishonestly laid against me


liar liar pants on fire,

ikle bit of swearing but its a dam fine song ^_^




[edit on 7/3/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
It is called "The Theory of Evolution" though, and not "The Theories of Evolution". Just to clarify.

So you disagree with evolgen?

I also edited my last post again. I'll let you catch up.

yes evolgen is just a theory an you wernt there to see it an god hates you and your going to hell!!

lol at the king of science in his fine shiney hat and whiter then white lab coat made of the finest white lab mice

reply to post by noobfun


Here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You are either really ignorant or you're just not that bright.

My whole position is that Scientists who claim that Evolution is both fact AND theory is a part of a conspiracy to claim The Theory of Evolution is a fact.

Now post some more quotes that prove my position, saves me the work.

Good one.

The OP locks after 24 hours. Nice try again.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
It is called "The Theory of Evolution" though, and not "The Theories of Evolution". Just to clarify.

So you disagree with evolgen?

I also edited my last post again. I'll let you catch up.

I said Evolutionists AND Scientists. Tricky word play I know.

Yes I disagree with him.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I said Evolutionists AND Scientists. Tricky word play I know.

Yes I disagree with him.

I'm confused about the first line, if it was related to my showing that the controversy links were mainly not scientists, but creationists, then it makes no sense.

If you disagree with evolgen why even bother posting a link to his blog post. All he's saying is that there is no real single 'theory' of evolution, but 'theories'.

I think it's a rather inane point, but hey-ho. Pedants will be pedants.

ABE:

My whole position is that Scientists who claim that Evolution is both fact AND theory is a part of a conspiracy to claim The Theory of Evolution is a fact.

And they further this conspiracy by making clear distinctions between the fact and theory of evolution?

We're getting into terra-absurdity again.


[edit on 7-3-2009 by melatonin]

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

 

Here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You are either really ignorant or you're just not that bright.

how could you ever tell with your eyes scruntched shut an your fingers in your ears

My whole position is that Scientists who claim that Evolution is both fact AND theory is a part of a conspiracy to claim The Theory of Evolution is a fact.

but they are claiming evolution can be both a thoery and a fact at different times

in the same way duck can be a grouping of ave's and an action ... all depending on context ...

not the the theory of evolution is a fact

an well if your trying to show cience is doing this how about some links from scinetist not creationist who appear to be the only ones getting cofused ..an they say its nopt a fact just a theory .. as if a theory was an idea someone had in the jon

Now post some more quotes that prove my position, saves me the work.

what you cant find ANY so now your asking us to find them for you?

The OP locks after 24 hours. Nice try again.

ummm ... really your are a special one arnt you

it was a retorical question ..... one questioning how your pulling evidence that really is going against what you claime in the op ..... let try arcasm and irony and see if that goes straight over your head



[edit on 7/3/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun

Originally posted by noobfun
lol at the king of science in his fine shiney hat and whiter then white lab coat made of the finest white lab mice

--------------------------

READ:

Originally posted by SimonGray
1) Be polite. Above all, we take pride in the fact that AboveTopSecret.com is renowned as a destination for civil and polite discussion of nearly anything. Treat your fellow ATS members with respect, and your time here will be rewarding.

Keep it up. Follow the rules. Or go find another forum.



[edit on 7-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

But what's the point, except to infer that evolution is wrong or at least no better than creationism?

Arguing over "fact" vs. "theory" and taking some examples of people who claim that it is both a fact and a theory - which is a silly thing to say in my opinion - add nothing.

What was the purpose? And I admit there's no way I'm going through 15 pages of this argument to see if you already posted it.

The only reason I can see is to somehow build up creationism by tearing down evolution.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Henry Fnord]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
And they further this conspiracy by making clear distinctions between the fact and theory of evolution?

Yes.

Originally posted by melatonin
We're getting into terra-absurdity again.

I respect your opinion.



[edit on 7-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by Henry Fnord
The only reason I can see is to somehow buikd up creationism by tearing down evolution.

You mean that attempting to label 90% of scientists and 'evolutionists' liars is no more than vilifying two groups of people, especially when the claim has absolutely no justification in reality?

Hmm, yeah.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
And they further this conspiracy by making clear distinctions between the fact and theory of evolution?

Yes.

lol

Sorry, I don't respect your opinion. Indeed, opinions don't deserve respect. I'll respect your right to hold it, though.






[edit on 7-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Henry Fnord
But what's the point, except to infer that evolution is wrong or at least no better than creationism?

Arguing over "fact" vs. "theory" and taking some examples of people who claim that it is both a fact and a theory - which is a silly thing to say in my opinion - add nothing.

What was the purpose? And I admit there's no way I'm going through 15 pages of this argument to see if you already posted it.

The only reason I can see is to somehow build up creationism by tearing down evolution.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Henry Fnord]

I believe Evolution is a fact. Why would I want to tear a fact down?