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

reply to post by iWork4NWO


did you seriously say why? lol. if there isn't something inside the creature controlling the change, and making sure it is necessary for survival, then why, and how, would it change?

reply to post by melatonin


My argument is proven. You only want to argue about everything BUT my argument.

Cheers.

going to lunch, be back soon! looking forward to hearing what you have to say noobfun and iwork4nwo!

Originally posted by one_man24
reply to post by noobfun

 

as for a question that evolution can't answer, i'll give you three, but i already know what you will say.


1. what forces, outside or inside, constitute the need for a particular creature to change it's genetic makeup?

none

there is no force that require it to it doesnt do it becasue it needs to, it happens becasue copy errors happen, what force requires a delete key on keyboards? none errors happen theres nothing driving spelling errors nothing there that wants errors

they happen becasue the processes is not perfect,

2. what is the internal mechanism that actually controls the evolutionary process once there is a need for change?

there isnt one

its not an intantaneous system where by the need for legs is required so somthing sudenly sprouts them,

the only set conditions are, does it kill me?does it do nothing? oes it aid me .. beyoind that its all variables

even then many good mutations get lost becasue they are swamped in large gene pools

3. where did the first life actually come from?
(i know what you will say to this one, but if "life begets life" is true then this topic has great relevancy when discussing the theory of evolution)

well if you think my answer i .. this isnt evolution then your right

id also ask for a working and accurate deffintion of life to base my answer around, life is esentially nothing more then organic chemistry taking place in an organic structure formed by organic chemistry

and well organic chemistry takes place all around us and most of it not insie anything you would class as alive .. such as the sea, lakes river floating about in the atmosphere

organic chemistry even happens in space so i need a real working deffintion of life before that question can be honestly aske and accuratley answered

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Thanks for posting that. They all prove my point exactly.

If you say Evolution is both Fact AND Theory. You're wrong. Its a Lie.

1.Theory = explanation for a verifiable observation.
2. Fact = verifiable observation.

Clearly different things.

Fact = Theory? NO
Theory = Fact? NO

And they all make the distinction between fact and theory.

They are not saying fact = theory or theory = fact.

They are saying that evolution is both fact and theory.

Is Evolution a fact? Yes

Is Gravity a fact? Yes

Is The Theory of Gravity a fact? Of course not it's a theory that explains the fact of gravity.

Is the Theory of Evolution a fact? Of course not it's a theory that explains the fact of Evolution.

Is evolution a fact? Yes. Evolution has facts.

And, what!!!! there is also a theory of evolution? Why, yes, there is.

Just like gravity, evolution is both fact and theory.

That's the Lie. Every conspiracy has a Lie or multiple lies or deception.

At this point the only potential lie is that 90% of scientists and evolutionists claim that the 'theory of evolution is a fact'.

Evolution (1) = fact
Evolution (2) = theory

Your claim is that the vast majority are stating evolution (2), the theory of evolution, is a fact and therefore equivalent to Evolution (1). Evolution can be considered both fact (1) and theory (2). The theory of evolution is a theory. The facts of evolution are the facts.

It's pretty simple really. And you appear to understand that. Now all you need to do is show this vast cabal claiming 'the theory of evolution is a fact'.

reply to post by melatonin


could be Mel ..

its funny a simple principle like 1 word having 2 different meanings and implications in given situations seem difficult to grasp

i wonder if someone shouts duck he look up and argues there are none an they are in a conspiracy against him right before the golf ball slams into his head and nocks him unconcious

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by melatonin

 

could be Mel ..

its funny a simple principle like 1 word having 2 different meanings and implications in given situations seem difficult to grasp

i wonder if someone shouts duck he look up and argues there are none an they are in a conspiracy against him right before the golf ball slams into his head and nocks him unconcious

It's probably the most idiotic argument I've heard for a while at ATS. Why the hell would scientists want to form a conspiracy to claim the theory as fact.

The problem is getting over that evolution is more than theory in the wild guess point of view, and that scientific theory signifies a well-supported explanation. Once the scientific facts are accepted, then the theory (mechanisms) is a minor issue to the fundie hordes.

In other words, creationist ideologues have issues with the facts, lol. They couldn't care less about the mechanism that makes them a monkey's uncle, but the fact they are a monkey's uncle.

The thread is almost whammy-like in its conception (you might have come across him). Indeed, so is the dishonest style. Hmmm, hypothesis forms...

[edit on 6-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
They are saying that evolution is both fact and theory.

A Theory can't be a fact. How can it be both? So the word Theory in Science means both Fact and Theory? This is what you claim? LMAO

Again, go google "Scientific Fact" and "Scientific Theory".

Until you do that and look the words up and understand that One can't be the Other, so they can't be both.

1 can't equal 2
2 can't equal 1

1 can't equal 2 and 1
2 can't equal 1 and 2

Only 1 = 1
Only 2 = 2

Got it now? If not too bad, you're dense I guess.



[edit on 6-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by one_man24

arguments 1, 3, 5, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 38, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49

ummmm .... want me to write your doctorial thesis on evolutionary biology while im at it?

pick the best argument you can find off that site and u2u me ave hijacking the thread

i know my s & d keys are dying on me but really there wasnt supposed to be s tagged on the end of there lol

1)not evolution thats geology
3)not evolution either
5)is evolution but uses the word 'kind' your going to have to clarrify the word kind has been used for everything from species up to family ... an saying things look alike is hardly a good argument .... dolphins look like fish ... are they trying to say they are the same kind?

15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 45, 46, 47, 49 ... not evolution .. at all not even biology they are so far from it

23, 38, 41, 44(kind of but not really evolution), 48(same as 44) are evolution or in the case of the last two anthropology ... can we do 41 i love archy got a number of thread around here somewere with people claiming its a bird and bieng shown how wrong they are(bird with teeth and no beak infact saying archy was just a flying reptile not a bird is easier to defend)

hehe the article also trys to link in Protoavis texensis .. which is a misidentified bunch of bones many of which have been rightly reidentified as to the original species the bits an pieces came from .. nearly ruined his career with that anouncment but he didnt try to cover it up or lie about anything and admitted it was on very shacky ground as a new speies, still hopes another one will be found to vindicate himself though .. dought that will ever happen

but he ha ince one some wonderful work on the microraptor fossils though since then.. bi-wing birdies .. evolution is wild

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by melatonin
They are saying that evolution is both fact and theory.

A Theory can't be a fact. How can it be both? So the word Theory in Science means both Fact and Theory? This is what you claim? LMAO

no this is what you are claiming we are saying

we are saying the same word has two slightly ifferent meanings depending on context of use

in the same way as duck(quak) duck(get your head down)

we are also saying all three of the following phrases are interchangable ToE, theory of evolution, evolution

evolution is fact and theory

the theory of evoluion ..isnt a fact

and were still waiting for evience of a secret agreement or ecret agenda for this to be a conspiracy

the only agenda so far appears to be an inability to realie word can have more then one usage, an the disinformation that 90% of cientists say the actual phrase 'the theory of evolution is a fact'

when all you have hown i evidence of scientists bieng able to differenciate the two meanings your struggaling to see and hear the differance in context both uses imply...

[edit on 6/3/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
A Theory can't be a fact. How can it be both? So the word Theory in Science means both Fact and Theory? This is what you claim? LMAO

Again with the sleight of hand. Who is saying that the theory is fact. They are saying that evolution can be considered both fact and theory. Then they make the distinction clear, using the exact same claims you do.

You even make the same distinction. Evolution as fact, and evolution as theory (theory of evolution).

It's a simple concept. Just like blue can be a colour and negative mood.

Again, go google "Scientific Fact" and "Scientific Theory".

Until you do that and look the words up and understand that One can't be the Other, so they can't be both.

1 can't equal 2
2 can't equal 1

1 can't equal 2 and 1
2 can't equal 1 and 2

Only 1 = 1
Only 2 = 2

Got it now? If not too bad, you're dense I guess.

Whoever said we are talking about maths? Language isn't like maths. Evolution is both 1 and 2 (in fact, probably more when applied outside of science).

Again, support your claim that the vast majority of scientists and evolutionists claim the 'theory of evolution is a fact'. I've seen lots of evidence of people making the claim that evolution is both fact and theory. Just like 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.

Now, with your superior intellect (lol) you might notice that Gould is making a very clear distinction between fact and theory. And he claims that evolution can be viewed as both.

What he doesn't say is that the theory of evolution is a fact. Indeed, as noted, he makes the distinction between fact and theory very crystal (and I don't mean a solid structure of ordered atoms/molecules).

The confusion, my dear, is all of your own making. It's not a very clever example of intellectual dishonesty, though, almost as crystal as Gould's distinction is clear.


[edit on 6-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

It's probably the most idiotic argument I've heard for a while at ATS. Why the hell would scientists want to form a conspiracy to claim the theory as fact.

go on admit it your enjoying it really arnt ya

.... kinda reminds me of those its greeny blue/ no its bluey green pointle arguments ... the problem is he doesnt realise he's colour blind and its actually yellow and arguing the worlds in a consipray becasue .. it is yellow

The thread is almost whammy-like in its conception (you might have come across him). Indeed, so is the dishonest style. Hmmm, hypothesis forms...

this cant be wammy the insults are to intelligent(and no that isnt a compliment by a long shot) and cant be aerm not intelligent enough ... the high post count also makes the second acount hypothesis shaky

id already wondered about it :p

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
A Theory can't be a fact. How can it be both? So the word Theory in Science means both Fact and Theory? This is what you claim? LMAO

Again with the sleight of hand. Who is saying that the theory is fact. They are saying that evolution can be considered both fact and theory. Then they make the distinction clear, using the exact same claims you do.

You even make the same distinction. Evolution as fact, and evolution as theory (theory of evolution).

It's a simple concept. Just like blue can be a colour and negative mood.

Again, go google "Scientific Fact" and "Scientific Theory".

Until you do that and look the words up and understand that One can't be the Other, so they can't be both.

1 can't equal 2
2 can't equal 1

1 can't equal 2 and 1
2 can't equal 1 and 2

Only 1 = 1
Only 2 = 2

Got it now? If not too bad, you're dense I guess.

Whoever said we are talking about maths? Language isn't like maths. Evolution is both 1 and 2 (in fact, probably more when applied outside of science).

Again, support your claim that the vast majority of scientists and evolutionists claim the 'theory of evolution is a fact'. I've seen lots of evidence of people making the claim that evolution is both fact and theory. Just like 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.

Now, with your superior intellect (lol) you might notice that Gould is making a very clear distinction between fact and theory. And he claims that evolution can be viewed as both.

What he doesn't say is that the theory of evolution is a fact. Indeed, as noted, he makes the distinction between fact and theory very crystal (and I don't mean a solid structure of ordered atoms/molecules).

The confusion, my dear, is all of your own making. It's not a very clever example of intellectual dishonesty, though, almost as crystal as Gould's distinction is clear.


[edit on 6-3-2009 by melatonin]

Evolution cannot be both a theory and a fact. Why can't you wrap your brain around this?

Evolution = Fact

If Evolution = Theory and Fact. Then Evolution doesn't = Fact

So you say Evolution doesn't equal fact?

You're wrong. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Evolution cannot be both a theory and a fact. Why can't you wrap your brain around this?

becasue it can and your talking nonsense


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

it really is that simple

and were still waiting for evidence of the cabal declaring 'evolutionary theory is fact' to prove your 90% claims ..infact id settle for just 2 really real scientits who accept evolution and say the phrase 'evolutionary theory is fact'

[edit on 6/3/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Evolution cannot be both a theory and a fact. Why can't you wrap your brain around this?

No, it can. It's a word. And words can have subtle but different meanings which many people are quite able to understand and handle.

You must find language awfully confusing.

Evolution = Fact

If Evolution = Theory and Fact. Then Evolution doesn't = Fact

So you say Evolution doesn't equal fact?

You're wrong. Plain and simple.

Nope, I'm saying that evolution is both fact and theory. Even if you don't understand and accept the ability of words to hold different meanings in different contexts, then other people do. Most are quite able to handle words holding two different 'conditional values'.

All I'm asking you to do is show this vast cabal of scientists and 'evolutionists' failing to make the distinction stating that 'the theory of evolution is a fact'.

It's a simple request. Showing people making the distinction between fact and theory in the context of the word 'evolution' doesn't really cut it (and I don't mean slice with a knife).

At this point, I think I'll take the implicit inference from JPhish:

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

 

i had my doubts as to how many fish you'd catch with that bait.

But damn, it looks like you have your choice of which fish is for dinner.

A troll thread baited with a nugget of stupidity, as you are certainly not willing to support you claims or even get the level of discussion above semantics.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
All I'm asking you to do is show this vast cabal of scientists and 'evolutionists' failing to make the distinction stating that 'the theory of evolution is a fact'.

I don't have to show it. I've provided several examples and sources of Scientists saying that Evolution is a FACT AND a THEORY. It isn't. This is a Lie.

Can I prove the conspiracy? Nope, of course not.

Can I prove Evolution isn't a fact AND a theory? Yup. Read my OP. Evolution is a Fact. Not a Theory. Not a Theory and a Fact. The Theory of Evolution explains the Fact of Evolution. You can't prove this wrong.

Do I think there is a conspiracy? Yup.

Why claim what you know is a Lie? A conspiracy? Maybe. Not sure.

This is a place to talk about conspiracies. Show me how many have been PROVEN on ATS.

Enough said.

deny ignorance

[edit on 6-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I don't have to show it. I've provided several examples and sources of Scientists saying that Evolution is a FACT AND a THEORY. It isn't. This is a Lie.

That was not your original claim. Goalposts keep shifting.

Whether you accept it or not, scientists are quite happy for evolution to be both fact and theory. Indeed, in your OP you even outline why it's considered as fact and a theory.

Your claim was that a vast majority of scientists claim 'the theory of evolution is a fact'.

Can I prove the conspiracy? Nope, of course not.

Oh no, it is a conspiracy for people to accept evolution is both fact and theory. It's a conspiracy of people using words in the service of being able to understand each other.

Can I prove Evolution isn't a fact AND a theory? Yup. Read my OP. It is a Fact not a Theory.

Do I think there is a conspiracy? Yup.

Why claim what you know is a Lie? A conspiracy? Maybe. Not sure.

This is a place to talk about conspiracies. Show me how many have been PROVEN on ATS.

Enough said.

deny ignorance

Errm, yeah, deny pigs in pants.

Conspiracies proven on ATS? lol

I'm sure some have, but I think yours has now retreated to the level of people conspiring to call a spade a spade. How dreadful.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Scientists own "Scientific Definitions" of the words prove them wrong and you wrong. That's a spade a spade.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less true.

Cheers.


[edit on 6-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Well show me what's wrong with what Gould states:

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.

He's very clear about what he means. He doesn't conflate fact and theory. He makes the exact same distinction you do in the OP.

Again, what he clearly doesn't do is state that 'the theory of evolution is a fact'. That was your gripe.

You appear to have fallen back to whining about evolution having two different meanings in evolutionary science which can be, and are, clearly distinguished.

Oh. Noes. Call the special linguistic squad and arrest those men.


[edit on 6-3-2009 by melatonin]

Oh god another one of these threads.
This is ridiculous.

So I spawned from a pool of goop and over time developed into a human?
Yeah.....
So god, alah, jesus created the universe and I am saved if I repent?
Yeah.....
Mysticism.....Lack of "FACT"......


Enough of all this. Enough speculating and forcing our opinions. Maybe it would be better if we just admitted we don't know how the hell it started exactly. Maybe then we could focus on some more important things.

End of rant.

And yes I agree with the OP in one respect. That is that a theory is not fact. HOWEVER! I also agree to disagree that evolution is not "FACT". Now I agreed to disagree. I am not looking for a argument so please don't try to explain your opinion any further. It will do no good.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by N3krostatic]