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

They didn't change definition of word(s) to fit a theory, they changed those definitions to _fit observation_. That's how. Now go to school.

Originally posted by rawsom
They didn't change definition of word(s) to fit a theory, they changed those definitions to _fit observation_. That's how. Now go to school.

Sorry I would have replied sooner but I couldn't stop laughing. They changed definitions to fit observation? Why would you ever have to redefine a word to fit an observation?

Wow.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by rawsom
They didn't change definition of word(s) to fit a theory, they changed those definitions to _fit observation_. That's how. Now go to school.

Sorry I would have replied sooner but I couldn't stop laughing. They changed definitions to fit observation? Why would you ever have to redefine a word to fit an observation?

Wow.

Because it didn't fit the observation. This happens often in physics, biology, genetics, modern optics etc..


[edit on 10/3/09 by rawsom]

Originally posted by rawsom
Because it didn't fit the observation. This happens often in physics, biology, genetics, modern optics etc..
[edit on 10/3/09 by rawsom]

No it doesn't. Plain and simple. They may coin a new word but the definition of an existing word will rarely change. Except in The Theory of Evolution. ie; species, gene, evolution, etc...

Show some examples?

[edit on 10-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

[edit on 10-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by rawsom

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by rawsom
They didn't change definition of word(s) to fit a theory, they changed those definitions to _fit observation_. That's how. Now go to school.

Sorry I would have replied sooner but I couldn't stop laughing. They changed definitions to fit observation? Why would you ever have to redefine a word to fit an observation?

Wow.

Because it didn't fit the observation. This happens often in physics, biology, genetics, modern optics etc..


[edit on 10/3/09 by rawsom]

I can't believe you said that, not to mention you believe it!!

Observation is how data is collected. When analysed the result either accepts or rejects the null hypothesis. What you have just stated is that if it doesnt fit my hypothesis, then ill fudge things to make it fit!!

Now seriously, even the fools Melatonin and Noob would even recognise that!!

And I don't doubt it happens in a lot of Evolutionary Theory. Flawed science for a flawed theory... Thats how.. now YOU go to school.

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

 

No I didn't say I agree that Evolution is a theory. Science says it is, but I disagree. I could concede to that usage if we stated beforehand whether we were talking theory or fact. Though I still disagree with the whole concept of ONE fact, in all of science having this dual meaning.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Everything being ONE or being part of ONE doesn't exclude duality IMO.

For example take the Ying-Yang symbol: halfbit.org...

isn't that duality IN ONE??

Or a battery: www.kijkshop.nl...(34237).gif

that has a positive and a negative pole all in ONE?

Seeking for different opinions is easy but trying to find a way to include ALL in ONE is harder and I believe that there lies a solution to bind people and opinions togehter.

Well maybe I'm to philosofical ......

Eh and what is Abiogenesis?

[edit on 3/10/2009 by Melyanna Tengwesta]

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by John Matrix

 

I'm saying they didn't drag their knuckles along the ground sporting a club, grunting like the stereotype. I hate the term "ape-man", after all, man is ape making it a fairly pointless term.

Knuckle dragging is how I refer to the method that primates use to walk(using their front and back limbs).

Humans are not apes just because evolutionists say so. Humans are a seperate and unique species, which is why they can't cross breed, nor could they ever have cross bread.

Originally posted by rawsom
They didn't change definition of word(s) to fit a theory, they changed those definitions to _fit observation_. That's how. Now go to school.

Forget school, just go do some reaserch on the Internet. Every neanderthal is an evolutionist genious these days. Go research "creation science" websites and free yourself from your neanderthal past.

Originally posted by Welfhard
They don't need to prove their theory to you or the fundies it's accepted in the wider scientific community due to there being no other theory with anywhere near as much evidence. It's be accepted for a long time, even before the discovery of DNA and the evolutionary cornucopia of genetics.

It's accepted in the wider scientific community because of government funding. Become a creation scientist and you don't get gov. research grants and funding. Evolution scientists get the money.

reply to post by ohh_pleasee
Do you believe in the geological coloum as stated in evolutionary theory,where each layer represents a different age?It's a critical link & cornerstone in geologic evolution & i was wandering if you knew of it.

fact   /fækt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fakt] Show IPA
–noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

I would say everyone here would agree that the "Theory of Evolution" is indeed something that actually exists, and is something that is said to be true. thus, the "Theory of Evolution" is indeed a fact.

reply to post by B.A.C.


I seriously can not believe that not one Evo has responded to this post on the Seventy-Five Theses

But then again... i can believe it. Too much meat for them to eat there.

Excellent BAC .. star'd

Originally posted by whiterabbit85
I would say everyone here would agree that the "Theory of Evolution" is indeed something that actually exists, and is something that is said to be true. thus, the "Theory of Evolution" is indeed a fact.

It's a fact that there is a "theory of evolution".
The hypothesis, speculations, musings, ponderings, what ifs, couldbe's, mightbe's, maybes, assumptions, etc. behind the theory are not proven facts.

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by whiterabbit85
I would say everyone here would agree that the "Theory of Evolution" is indeed something that actually exists, and is something that is said to be true. thus, the "Theory of Evolution" is indeed a fact.

It's a fact that there is a "theory of evolution".
The hypothesis, speculations, musings, ponderings, what ifs, couldbe's, mightbe's, maybes, assumptions, etc. behind the theory are not proven facts.

Needs to be asked. Does anything point to the theory of evolution being wrong? The answer: Nope. Absolutely nothing points the theory of evolution being wrong. Some might say the Bible or some other holy fairy tale, but really - That's #ing retarded.


[edit on 10-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

reply to post by John Matrix


I'm fully aware of that, I was simply demonstrating that anyone can use the definition of a word in such a way as to make it fit into one's beliefs.

and noone is responding to your "theses" as you put it, because anything that anyone has said throughout this entire thread has been twisted by, or dismissed by you.

It is a proven fact that all life on this planet stems from teh combination of amino acids. It is also a proven fact that amino acids can be created synthetically via a closed system containing only those elements believed to be included in the atmosphereof the newly formed earth. (hydrogen, methane, nitrogen, water).

You fail to comprehend that you are not going to see the drastic macro-evolutionary changes even in the last hundred thousand years. changes like the formation of the first nervous system, the first eyes, the first vertebrae, took hundred of millions of years.

As for micro evolutionary changes, those are readily available for study. Look simply at the evolutionary changes between members of the same genus, that have made thier home sin different environments. Alms come to mind, as do wolf spiders.(Cave dwelling wolf spiders have lost the genetic material responsible for the formation of eyes, as they are of no use in the inky darkness of the caves in which they have evolved.

as for yeshuawarrior.... you have clearly never bothered to look into evolution at all. Noone is saying you or I came from chimps. Noone is saying that standing up to see over tall grasses sometimes is the reason for bipedalism.

Bipedalism stems from the lack of trees in the environment in which the first hominids evolved, as well as the inherent advantages that two free limbs during locomtotion bring. Lack of trees meant no shelter from predators, as well as no cover to use to ambush prey. Hundreds of thousands of years of using bipedalism as a means of pursuit, and escape, as well as freeing up the front limbs for tool and weapon use, is what made those more adaptable TO bipedalism survive, thus passing on those traits that MADE them more suited to bipedalism to thier offspring, over time eliminating those members of the species that were not so inclined to change.

Originally posted by hulkbacker

That's your opinion. Why could there not be a natural answer? You're assuming that there will be no natural answer.

By defenition, there can be no natural answer. Any answer would HAVE to be supernatural.

Again, that's your opinion.
How is it that there must be a supernatural answer?
Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean there isn't a natural cause. We may never known what's outside of our Universe, yet it may be very common for a Universe such as ours to spawn into existence.

reply to post by Fundie


I was drunk again. Sorry for my stupid comments. :-)

I will propably stop posting comments while drunk, I never get anything reasonable out when in such shape. I don't even remember posting these.

Now I have a hangover.

Originally posted by rawsom
reply to post by Fundie

 

I was drunk again. Sorry for my stupid comments. :-)

I will propably stop posting comments while drunk, I never get anything reasonable out when in such shape. I don't even remember posting these.

Now I have a hangover.

No problemo

Hair of the dog anyone

reply to post by iWork4NWO


Go read the 75 Theses I posted. LOTS of FACTS point to the Theory being wrong.

Originally posted by rawsom
reply to post by Fundie

 

I was drunk again. Sorry for my stupid comments. :-)

I will propably stop posting comments while drunk, I never get anything reasonable out when in such shape. I don't even remember posting these.

Now I have a hangover.

No problem.

Livened up the thread a little