It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yes, and I realized my mistake. I admit that. I've already admitted that. So why keep bringing it up? Is it because what I say NOW is right, and you don't want to agree?
I've NEVER said "Evolution" is a theory since I realized my mistake. In fact, the second I realized the mistake we were all making in that discussion, I made this thread.
Originally posted by Joecroft
reply to post by B.A.C.
Originally posted by B.A.C
The Theory of X - is X a theory? or a fact?
LOL
That's a fair comment...and I have already admitted that the word "evolution" is a little confusing... because of how it can be meant in two contexts, unlike most other scientific theories and facts.
If you think back to the other thread, I always made a clear distinction in all my posts between “evolution Fact” and the “theory of evolution” because I felt it was important to do so.
Remember, I was one of the firsts guys to admit on the other evolution thread that the "theory of evolution" was not a fact and I even took a bit of flack from other evolutionists. lol Although eventually a couple of die hards lol admitted the same thing.
PS- I believe in God but I accept that the "theory of evolution" is the best scientific theory we have to go on, at this moment in time. You were honest enough to admit your position on the other thread, so I thought I should do the same.
Welcome to ATS...
- JC
Originally posted by B.A.C.
90% What a coincidence. I said 90% of Scientists are purposefully using this dual meaning to snuff any question of The Theory of Evolution, or to present it as fact. Weird.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
What matters IS the meaning and context. Especially with Kids. Especially when no other fact has a dual meaning of "theory and fact". They do this with "Evolution" now, whats next?
You think Scientists started describing it this way by mistake? No, this was thought out to contradict anyone questioning the theory including other Scientists.
Evolution, 4b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations ; also : the process described by this theory
Evolution, 1. The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by melatonin
Sorry if it hurts your feelings. Which it must.
I didn't redefine it. Science did. The only word they've redefined as such. Weird.
If you don't agree with the conspiracy angle, that's fine. Then I don't have to be bothered showing you things you don't read.
Anyway, hope you have a great day!
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Theory of X - is X a theory or a fact?
X Theory - is X a theory or a fact?
Originally posted by iWork4NWO
Wouldn't you say that it's a fact that there is a theory of language and that language is a fact?
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Theory of X - is X a fact? is X a theory? Answer that.
Yup I agree there is a "Theory" of Language. There is a "Fact" of language. But they are not the same.
Careful because Science says they aren't either. It's only with Evolution they use this dual meaning of "theory" and "Fact".
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yup I'm more than aware of the dual meaning Science uses for Evolution. Why give me quotes? It just proves what I'm saying.
Evolution is NOT a theory. I know of no theory called "Evolution"
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Creationism isn't a theory or a hypotheses.
Originally posted by Melyanna Tengwesta
reply to post by B.A.C.
A theory is what it says just a thought, a possibility, a THEORY.
What I'm wondering about is this:
Suppose just suppose that both is true? That creation in itselves is both creation and evolution?
Isn't evolution just some kind of mutation?
Think about this .... instead of having 2 opposite opinions, 2 opposite camps, we could weave both theories into ONE outcome ......
reply to post by B.A.C.
It's The Theory of Evolution I disagree with.
Originally posted by TruthParadox
lol... It's just the opposite.
Scientists look for why.
Theists say "This is how it happened" with no evidence whatsoever.
This allows them to ignore the questions.
That's your opinion. Why could there not be a natural answer? You're assuming that there will be no natural answer.
Replace 'answer' with 'guess' and I'll agree
Of course. There was a cause to the reaction.
Science attempts to understand the cause.
Theism attempts to guess.
Originally posted by iWork4NWO
Originally posted by hulkbacker
When has anyone observed "evolution" working on the scale that the "theory of evolution" claims that it has been responsible for?
Here. Don't try to give me the micro/macro bs. This is it. A major step.
And here's speciation:
These two having sex is equal to me trying to stick my penis inside a rat. Doesn't work (not that I've tried).
Originally posted by hulkbacker
Furthermore we know that such change is based on loosing genectic information and not gaining it. So its a poor example to put forth as the type of evolutionary changes needed to account for all the variation of life we currently have.
they are still dogs. Can you provide an observation of any one thing evolving into another kind of thing?
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by B.A.C.
It's The Theory of Evolution I disagree with.
I'm probably going to regret this but why?
I believe in God. I don't think the two are compatible.
Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by B.A.C.
I believe in God. I don't think the two are compatible.
Why.