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

The personal sniping will cease now - on both ends. There is no need to reference the poster, indeed, remain on topic which is, "Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact."

It is also very advisable to not assume that people are working together to derail a thread merely because they have similar opinions/agree with each other and equally advisable to not assume the job of Staff.

Thank you.

reply to post by noobfun


I've actually found a new form of evolution. The evolution of BAC...

Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK I'l be one of the religious nuts to respond

In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

The word is derived from Greek θεωρία theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation"

en.wikipedia.org...

Why don't I believe in evolution?

It is speculation.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
No I didn't refute General Relativity, I confirmed it (look up Straw Man), the OP's whole premise is that theories are more than speculation, which in most cases I agree with.

In the case of evolution the facts aren't known, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Point made.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK show me a FACT, just one FACT, not ALL, just ONE that is known about evolution.

Remember a FACT is VERIFIABLE.

Is this a setup too

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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

 

...

Regardless of your comments, evolution still has a LOT of proof behind it

Yes, it has a lot of proof, just not enough to be considered fact.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
OK I'm starting to see spots. I've been on this thread since 10 am this morning, it is now 2 am (16 hrs). While I've been working on client stuff from home, hopefully all their stuff will still run LMAO

Anyways, I'll continue on tomorrow.

Down with evolution (I'm on topic)

fact or theory?

lol

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by jfj123

 

Prove that evolution is a lie? Is that what this thread is coming to?

Gravitational Theory - explains the LAW of Gravity.

Electromagnetic Theory - explains the many LAWS of electricity.

But

The Theory of Evolution - attempts to explain it's own theory.

Cheers.

Beautiful, lol.

Last one...

Originally posted by B.A.C.
So by Thursday you can PROVE evolution?

Go read many quotes by leading scientist that admit they have a LOT of the answers concerning evolution, but not ALL of the answers.

Is there evidence for evolution? Absolutely.

Is there lot's of evidence for evolution? Possibly.

Can you or anyone else say you have all the answers for evolution? Nope.

Therefore it is not fact yet. It is still just a theory, no matter how you'd like to redefine theory.

linky

A few days later...

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Is Evolution a fact? Yes

lol

Point made. What an eye opening series of posts. Almost a punk-eeq event.


[edit on 7-3-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


that last but one ... its saying ...evolution is just a thoery ....

and the last saying ..evoution is a fact

suddenly the 17 pages were all worthwhile

evolution is a fact
evolution is a theory
the theory of evolution is not a fact

and so says EVERYONE who has taken part in this thread

[edit on 7/3/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by MemoryShock
The personal sniping will cease now - on both ends. There is no need to reference the poster, indeed, remain on topic which is, "Don't let them tell you that "The Theory of Evolution" is a fact."

It is also very advisable to not assume that people are working together to derail a thread merely because they have similar opinions/agree with each other and equally advisable to not assume the job of Staff.

Thank you.

I agree. Thank You. You do a great job!

Ok. Back on topic now.

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by melatonin

 

that last but one ... its saying ...evolution is just a thoery ....

and the last saying ..evoution is a fact

suddenly the 17 pages were all worthwhile

evolution is a fact
evolution is a theory
the theory of evolution is not a fact

and so says EVERYONE who has taken part in this thread

[edit on 7/3/09 by noobfun]

It is worthwhile, all 17 pages. Because I say Evolution is Not a Theory. I say that's what Science teaches. I think they teach it wrong on purpose. I think that is the conspiracy. There is no other Fact that Science claims is ALSO a theory.

Any thoughts on this?

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by melatonin

 

that last but one ... its saying ...evolution is just a thoery ....

and the last saying ..evoution is a fact

suddenly the 17 pages were all worthwhile

evolution is a fact
evolution is a theory
the theory of evolution is not a fact

and so says EVERYONE who has taken part in this thread

T'was a lulzworthy trawl.

I'm just glad we didn't get into the discussions about the potential dimensional nature of knowledge. It looks like BAC made the move from dimensional to categorical over the few days of mutation, selection, doughnuts, and coffee.

Apparently the theory hadn't yet become a fact, suppose time would have told. But now they are completely different things and ne'er the twain shall meet.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Apparently the theory hadn't yet become a fact, suppose time would have told.

A Theory never becomes a fact. Mine included. Even though I wish it did. It won't.

Lot's of us would like to prove our belief in something, so bad, that we'll start calling Theories, Facts. Creationists are guilty of this as well. It isn't true though.

Originally posted by melatonin
I've actually found a new form of evolution. The evolution of BAC...

That thread was a WHOLE other area of discussion. Again, I was responding to people that were using the word Evolution in the sense of theory. Even I did it a few times on THAT thread, I admit it.

That's why I made THIS thread. To clear it up so everyone is on the same page. If you had a problem with my comments on THAT thread. Then let's go over to THAT thread and discuss it.

Again, The Theory of Evolution is NOT a fact. Let's argue that on THIS thread.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

It is worthwhile, all 17 pages. Because I say Evolution is Not a Theory. I say that's what Science teaches. I think they teach it wrong on purpose. I think that is the conspiracy. There is no other Fact that Science claims is ALSO a theory.

Any thoughts on this?

yes im thinking about what could have happened in the past 4 days for a complete switch in thought process that has lead to evolution becoming a fact and evolution bieng demoted from a theory

its like the bi-polar proffessor without the book sales

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by B.A.C.

It is worthwhile, all 17 pages. Because I say Evolution is Not a Theory. I say that's what Science teaches. I think they teach it wrong on purpose. I think that is the conspiracy. There is no other Fact that Science claims is ALSO a theory.

Any thoughts on this?

yes im thinking about what could have happened in the past 4 days for a complete switch in thought process that has lead to evolution becoming a fact and evolution bieng demoted from a theory

its like the bi-polar proffessor without the book sales

Evolution never was a theory. Never will be a theory. The Theory of Evolution is the theory ABOUT the fact of Evolution. I realized this simple fact and created a thread about it. I used to make the same mistake all the time. I no longer do.

Evolution is NOT a theory, that is a lie. A lie that I used to believe. Now I don't believe that lie. The Theory of Evolution is the theory. Evolution is what The Theory of Evolution explains.

Note: this thread is only 2 days old.

Now we're back on track.

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

Why are you people even arguing about this? Some people accidentally use words in wrong ways, that's all. No conspiracy there.

I am however going to say something that will eventually stirr the pot. Here we go.

A theory which is proven correct by observation becomes a fact when it works flawlessly. A better way to say is propably that it is a factual representatin of explanation of facts. That will make the theory a fact.

No go read some logic and then wake up.

Evolution IS a theory....just as any religion is just a theory.
The big difference to me is, at least evolution has some facts to back it up.
I have yet to see anything to make me believe that any religious text is based on factual information of any sort.

Be that as it may, to each their own.

Originally posted by rawsom
Why are you people even arguing about this? Some people accidentally use words in wrong ways, that's all. No conspiracy there.

I am however going to say something that will eventually stirr the pot. Here we go.

A theory which is proven correct by observation becomes a fact when it works flawlessly. A better way to say is propably that it is a factual representatin of explanation of facts. That will make the theory a fact.

No go read some logic and then wake up.

BAC thought that a few days back, but it's a ladies privilige to change their mind.

It actually has some merit as an argument. If we just take facts as claims which have been highly tested and verified, a theory could actually make such a level of reasonable acceptance in a Baysian sort of way.

Too complex an idea for this thread, though. We're still having difficulty with justifying words having different meanings in different contexts.

Lets learn to walk before we run, lol.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by rawsom
A theory which is proven correct by observation becomes a fact when it works flawlessly. A better way to say is propably that it is a factual representatin of explanation of facts. That will make the theory a fact.

It actually has some merit as an argument. If we just take facts as claims which have been highly tested and verified, a theory could actually make such a level of reasonable acceptance in a Baysian sort of way.

Yeah well, I'm not saying theory of evolution is yet anywhere near that kind of level of acceptance, as it still has some holes in it. It just cannot explain everything yet, but everyday it becomes closer and closer of being in that situation.

Originally posted by Unityrover
I try to explain this to my evolutionist friends all the time, but they don't get it/ refuse to acknowledge it. A scientific fact is something that can be observed or reproduced in a laboratory setting. Macro-Evolution (The idea of a species breeding beyond itself, so it cannot reproduce with a member of a previous generation - no, mules don't count) is a THEORY. (same goes with any origin of the universe hypothesis) Believing in something you can't see is faith. Don't push your beliefs on me.

You lose points for sourcing Wikipedia though. XD

Interesting, and obvious. No one knows what happened or how it happened. You do lose points on the wiki though haha

Originally posted by rawsom

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by rawsom
A theory which is proven correct by observation becomes a fact when it works flawlessly. A better way to say is propably that it is a factual representatin of explanation of facts. That will make the theory a fact.

It actually has some merit as an argument. If we just take facts as claims which have been highly tested and verified, a theory could actually make such a level of reasonable acceptance in a Baysian sort of way.

Yeah well, I'm not saying theory of evolution is yet anywhere near that kind of level of acceptance, as it still has some holes in it. It just cannot explain everything yet, but everyday it becomes closer and closer of being in that situation.

Agreed.

Every day the facts pile up on theories. They don't become facts though. Because a theory explains all of them piled up facts. Facts don't explain things.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

I think with genetics being a fact and it backs evolution id have to say its far beyond a theory. Also like to note the person that proved this was a priest!
Now hows that for irony?

Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20, 1822[1] – January 6, 1884) was an Augustinian priest and scientist, and is often called the father of genetics for his study of the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants. Mendel showed that the inheritance of these traits follows particular laws, which were later named after him. The significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century. Its rediscovery prompted the foundation of the discipline of genetics.

Originally posted by dragonridr
I think with genetics being a fact and it backs evolution id have to say its far beyond a theory. Also like to note the person that proved this was a priest!
Now hows that for irony?

Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20, 1822[1] – January 6, 1884) was an Augustinian priest and scientist, and is often called the father of genetics for his study of the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants. Mendel showed that the inheritance of these traits follows particular laws, which were later named after him. The significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century. Its rediscovery prompted the foundation of the discipline of genetics.

Genetics is not a fact. Genetics EXPLAINS genes (fact) and traits (fact) and other (facts), it is a discipline. I'll say that the evidence in support of it is huge though.

This is what I'm talking about. People are getting used to thinking that (Theories, Hypotheses, Disciplines) are facts, they forget that all of these explain the facts, and aren't facts themselves.



[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

So what's wrong in thinking that a factual explanation is a fact in itsef? There is rotation of earth and its circular orbit around the sun, or so the theory goes. That theory explains a lot, and what is explains is a fact in itself as well. What's so difficult in this?

Yet again it is obvious that very few (if any) people have a firm grasp of what the scientific method really is 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.

Cont'd