Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

[aplcr0331]

I wouldn't use SJG as a rebuttal for anything. He's been proven wrong, for the most part, by science in the intervening years between his publishing.

What is it with you Morons?
Don't you feel obligated to post ANY Content/backing for your statement?
Post any logical or sourced refutation of the OP?

Yet Another 60 IQ Simpleton just chirps in with "no".
Post some Meat or get lost A-hole.
`

Well, since you asked so nicely.

Read this one carefully - Remembering Stephen Jay Gould | Natural History Magazine

Proof that the very thing SJG accused actual scientists of, he was in fact doing himself - PLOS Biology: The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias

Contrary to SJG - http://search.vcu.edu/search?q=cach...t=default_frontend&ie=UTF-8&access=p&oe=UTF-8

SJG fame is already lessening. His dressing up his political lectures to appear as essays on scientific history isn't a very effective mechanism for lasting regard, no matter how well done. He is nowadays remembered for only two things: punctuated equilibrium and the mustard seed bias in cranial measurements.

Gould was wrong about a lot of things, however I too am an evolution believer not sure where your vitriol is coming from.

 

[abu afak]

I wouldn't use SJG as a rebuttal for anything. He's been proven wrong, for the most part, by science in the intervening years between his publishing.

What is it with you Morons?
Don't you feel obligated to post ANY Content/backing for your statement?
Post any logical or sourced refutation of the OP?
Yet Another 60 IQ Simpleton just chirps in with "no".
Post some Meat or get lost A-hole.
`

Well, since you asked so nicely.
Read this one carefully - Remembering Stephen Jay Gould | Natural History Magazine
Proof that the very thing SJG accused actual scientists of, he was in fact doing himself - PLOS Biology: The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias
Contrary to SJG - http://search.vcu.edu/search?q=cach...t=default_frontend&ie=UTF-8&access=p&oe=UTF-8

SJG fame is already lessening. His dressing up a political lecture as an essay on scientific history isn't a very effective mechanism for lasting regard, no matter how well done. He is nowadays remembered for only two things: punctuated equilibrium and the mustard seed bias in cranial measurements.

I see an UNEXCERPTED LINK DUMP.
A gratuitous google/mb pet trick, of 'Gould is wrong', which will of course find GENERAL contradiction/disagreement.
I disagree with Gould on certain things too.. BUT...
I see NOTHING refuting 'Evolution as Fact and Theory'. You?

Your turn CLOWN.
`

 

[aplcr0331]

What is it with you Morons?
Don't you feel obligated to post ANY Content/backing for your statement?
Post any logical or sourced refutation of the OP?
Yet Another 60 IQ Simpleton just chirps in with "no".
Post some Meat or get lost A-hole.
`

Well, since you asked so nicely.

Read this one carefully - Remembering Stephen Jay Gould | Natural History Magazine

Proof that the very thing SJG accused actual scientists of, he was in fact doing himself - PLOS Biology: The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias

Contrary to SJG - http://search.vcu.edu/search?q=cach...t=default_frontend&ie=UTF-8&access=p&oe=UTF-8

SJG fame is already lessening. His dressing up a political lecture as an essay on scientific history isn't a very effective mechanism for lasting regard, no matter how well done. He is nowadays remembered for only two things: punctuated equilibrium and the mustard seed bias in cranial measurements.

I see an UNEXCERPTED LINK DUMP.
A mindless google of 'Gould is wrong'.

I see NOTHING refuting Evolution as Fact and Theory. You?

Your turn CLOWN.
`

Actually here is what you get when you google "Gould was wrong" - https://www.google.com/#q=gould+was+wrong

Nothing really close to what I posted.

Here's what Bing shows, with the search terms "Gould was wrong" - gould was wrong - Bing

Perhaps my posting was incorrectly interpreted as an indicment on SJG's (and your) position on Evolution. For that mistake, I do apologize as it seems you are very upset at me. I mean you've actually called me a clown now, and that coupled with the asshole comment and the always hurtful and eloquent negative reputation comment. Do you always react like this when (it appears that) your ideas are challenged?

 

[abu afak]

Well, since you asked so nicely.

Read this one carefully - Remembering Stephen Jay Gould | Natural History Magazine

Proof that the very thing SJG accused actual scientists of, he was in fact doing himself - PLOS Biology: The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias

Contrary to SJG - http://search.vcu.edu/search?q=cach...t=default_frontend&ie=UTF-8&access=p&oe=UTF-8

SJG fame is already lessening. His dressing up a political lecture as an essay on scientific history isn't a very effective mechanism for lasting regard, no matter how well done. He is nowadays remembered for only two things: punctuated equilibrium and the mustard seed bias in cranial measurements.

I see an UNEXCERPTED LINK DUMP.
A mindless google of 'Gould is wrong'.

I see NOTHING refuting Evolution as Fact and Theory. You?

Your turn CLOWN.
`

Actually here is what you get when you google "Gould was wrong" - https://www.google.com/#q=gould+was+wrong

Nothing really close to what I posted.

Here's what Bing shows, with the search terms "Gould was wrong" - gould was wrong - Bing

Perhaps my posting was incorrectly interpreted as an indicment on SJG's (and your) position on Evolution. For that mistake, I do apologize as it seems you are very upset at me. I mean you've actually called me a clown now, and that coupled with the asshole comment and the always hurtful and eloquent negative reputation comment. Do you always react like this when (it appears that) your ideas are challenged?

I act like this when you come in the the Same manner as S.J. has interminably.. with ContentLESS disagreement: "He's wrong" .. with -0- reason why.
He never even bothers with the gratuitous Googling.

You made a Blanket statement as to "not using Gould for anything" which would of course be a mistake.
But I do thank you for even the gratuitous google
I suggest you look at S.J.'s posts throughout.
THAT was the Context of my response to your initial post.

I myself disagree with Gould on certain science issues, but we're nowhere near those finer points: we're talking Basics here.
Evolution remains Fact and Theory. The OP unrefuted and even unaddressed substantially.
`

 

[aplcr0331]

I see an UNEXCERPTED LINK DUMP.
A mindless google of 'Gould is wrong'.

I see NOTHING refuting Evolution as Fact and Theory. You?

Your turn CLOWN.
`

Actually here is what you get when you google "Gould was wrong" - https://www.google.com/#q=gould+was+wrong

Nothing really close to what I posted.

Here's what Bing shows, with the search terms "Gould was wrong" - gould was wrong - Bing

Perhaps my posting was incorrectly interpreted as an indicment on SJG's (and your) position on Evolution. For that mistake, I do apologize as it seems you are very upset at me. I mean you've actually called me a clown now, and that coupled with the asshole comment and the always hurtful and eloquent negative reputation comment. Do you always react like this when (it appears that) your ideas are challenged?

I act like this when you come in the the Same manner as S.J. has interminably.. with ContentLESS disagreement: "He's wrong" .. with -0- reason why.
He never even bothers with the gratuitous Googling.

You made a Blanket statement as to "not using Gould for anything" which would of course be a mistake.
But I do thank you for even the gratuitous google
I suggest you look at S.J.'s posts throughout.
THAT was the Context of my response to your initial post.

I myself disagree with Gould on certain science issues, but we're nowhere near those finer points: we're talking Basics here.
Evolution remains Fact and Theory. The OP unrefuted and even unaddressed substantially.
`

Ah, now its more clear. I did use the term "anything" so again I apologize for the grammar mistake in my original post. I too, disagree with much of what SJG has to say, and in my own crappy way...that was what I was trying to communicate. My IQ hovers closer to around 85 or there abouts, so when I google I actually tend to read an article or two instead of just pasting the first three links that pop up

 

[S.J.]

Besides what's ALREADY in this string, such as the OP, a Dufus like you dare not touch, there's the post I linked to above:

OK beneath-Dufus - YOUR TURN.
Put up or Shut up You DOPE.
You know NOTHING. You post NO CONTENT Here, you're just a two-bit disagreeable ahole.
`

Could you post something other than someone else's speculation? Face it, Dude, you've got nothing. Nothing but name calling. No facts, no evidence. The more you rant and rave, the more foolish you look. I'll bet you also believe in Global Warming and think Obamacare is great.

Well, dumb fuck, you just conceded the arguement when you added that last sentence. But your arguements are pissing in the wind, in any case. Nobody pays attention to really dumb asses anymore, and science is taught in science classes all over the world. People like you are regarded the same as one regards someone with Downs. Humor them, be nice to them, because there is nothing that can be done to change their sad state.

Now THAT'S funny. YOU calling someone a "dumb fuck".

 

[S.J.]

Well, since you asked so nicely.

Read this one carefully - Remembering Stephen Jay Gould | Natural History Magazine

Proof that the very thing SJG accused actual scientists of, he was in fact doing himself - PLOS Biology: The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias

Contrary to SJG - http://search.vcu.edu/search?q=cach...t=default_frontend&ie=UTF-8&access=p&oe=UTF-8

SJG fame is already lessening. His dressing up a political lecture as an essay on scientific history isn't a very effective mechanism for lasting regard, no matter how well done. He is nowadays remembered for only two things: punctuated equilibrium and the mustard seed bias in cranial measurements.

I see an UNEXCERPTED LINK DUMP.
A mindless google of 'Gould is wrong'.

I see NOTHING refuting Evolution as Fact and Theory. You?

Your turn CLOWN.
`

Actually here is what you get when you google "Gould was wrong" - https://www.google.com/#q=gould+was+wrong

Nothing really close to what I posted.

Here's what Bing shows, with the search terms "Gould was wrong" - gould was wrong - Bing

Perhaps my posting was incorrectly interpreted as an indicment on SJG's (and your) position on Evolution. For that mistake, I do apologize as it seems you are very upset at me. I mean you've actually called me a clown now, and that coupled with the asshole comment and the always hurtful and eloquent negative reputation comment. Do you always react like this when (it appears that) your ideas are challenged?

BINGO! He's not here to make a case for evolution, he's here to troll. That's evident by his opening comments, not to mention the ranting and raving that followed. Another flame baiting thread disguised as a "scientific discussion".

 

[abu afak]

[Sleeze="5"]BINGO![/SIZE] He's not here to make a case for Evolution, he's here to troll. That's evident by his opening comments, not to mention the ranting and raving that followed. Another flame baiting thread disguised as a "scientific discussion".

Um.. S.J. you DISHONEST LYING DOPE.
My last post, Like almost all MY posts was ON TOPIC: Evolution.

Yours NEVER are, you Stupid LYING Troll.

NO answer for me ON EVOLUTION and Your Juvenile/Ignorant MISUSE of "theory" you Lying/DISHONEST Clown?
You tried to DODGE the TOPIC AGAIN!

UPDATE on the ALL the posts of NONconversant 70 IQ TROLL S.J., in this string: (Now 12 NON- one/two-liners)


After pointing out his first five, ALL one liners, I've Embarrassed S.J.-the-Troll into Two-liners! [+10 Other One/Two-Liners]
But they still Never say ANYTHING.
the DOPE keeps asking for "proof" of a theory.
Theories don't have "proofs".
DUH.

So when EVIDENCE (the meat) IS posted, he rejects that as "speculation"/"other people's speculation" withOUT ever explaining WHY its Not evidence.
He is a Moron and NONCONVERSANT on this and All Science topics as we can see. Even HE knows it and trues to bluff his way thru.

Of course, If I posted it in my own words, he'd accuse that evidence of being "just my opinion" and also "speculation".
So there's No valid source. ('heads I win, tails you lose')
So the Two-Face ASSHOLE Never has to Answer ON TOPIC because he has these BS excuses about the source (me OR links), NEVER taking issue with the CONTENT about which we all know, he is Clueless. Even he knows it, obviously.

NEVER is there a topical response like/ie, "I don't think that's good Evidence and here's WHY."
LOFL With that huh!
SJ is a NONCONVERSANT/ILLITERATE Troll who Cannot answer thusly.

What we have here (and oft) is the invasion of the Stupid god-ists and 'political sciencers' goosed by this week's Hannity instead of any knowledge whatsoever. These turds are elementary school drop outs and literal creationist Retards.

What's a Disgrace is these ILLITERATE TROLLS are allowed to continue here without ever making or refuting ANY relevant point; just harass.
Just: "no", "it's not evidence", "not Proof", "speculation", "you suck".
And then the Stupid Hypocrite S.J. accuses others of personal insult when he has done NOTHING But Emptily TROLL and insult in the entire string.
`

I notice you didn't post my responses where I explained why your "evidence" isn't really evidence if it leads to dead ends. If you would like to post one point at a time I would be happy to debunk your bullshit point by point but when you copy and paste 20 fucking pages of opinions from another whacko like yourself, then expect me to comment on the whole fucking thing, you can go pound sand. You aren't worth that much time and energy.

But why continue anyway, you've just admitted all you have is a theory, so anything after that is speculation or flat out guessing. I would feel sorry for you if you weren't so obnoxious.

S.J. You DOPE, you've again pointed out one of the classic Fallacies of Other Dopes. THANKS!
And Of Course your post Still has NO Topical Content.
You're a TROLL.
The 'only a theory' Stupidity is Covered in the OP as well, but always glad to add Content.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief
June 2002
Shame on America! And 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense | Yoism

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."

Of course, Gravity is also "Only a Theory".
S.J. is/Remains a Stupid and Gutted Troll. A platform/straight-man unwittingly Helping me to Destroy Him and other board Vermin.
Thanks for your continued support/Promotion of this string.
`

Know what a Scientific Theory is NOW idiot?
ANY TIME You're Ready TO discuss evolution, that's why I'm here and WHAT I HAVE been doing You DISHONEST DOPE.
You are a TROLL with ZERO On Topic posts.
0-fer-13
`

 

[S.J.]

[Sleeze="5"]BINGO![/SIZE] He's not here to make a case for Evolution, he's here to troll. That's evident by his opening comments, not to mention the ranting and raving that followed. Another flame baiting thread disguised as a "scientific discussion".

Um.. S.J. you DISHONEST LYING DOPE.
My last post, Like almost all MY posts was ON TOPIC: Evolution.

Yours NEVER are, you Stupid LYING Troll.

NO answer for me ON EVOLUTION and Your Juvenile/Ignorant MISUSE of "theory" you Lying/DISHONEST Clown?
You tried to DODGE the TOPIC AGAIN!

S.J. You DOPE, you've again pointed out one of the classic Fallacies of Other Dopes. THANKS!
And Of Course your post Still has NO Topical Content.
You're a TROLL.
The 'only a theory' Stupidity is Covered in the OP as well, but always glad to add Content.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief
June 2002
Shame on America! And 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense | Yoism

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."

Of course, Gravity is also "Only a Theory".
S.J. is/Remains a Stupid and Gutted Troll. A platform/straight-man unwittingly Helping me to Destroy Him and other board Vermin.
Thanks for your continued support/Promotion of this string.
`

Know what a Scientific Theory is NOW idiot?
ANY TIME You're Ready TO discuss evolution, that's why I'm here and WHAT I HAVE been doing You DISHONEST DOPE.
You are a TROLL with ZERO On Topic posts.
0-fer-13
`

This was your opening post:

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

Anyone who takes issue with it is a troll. Thank you for proving my point. Feel free to respond with more name calling and more ranting and raving, as that is the purpose of this thread.

 

[abu afak]

[Sleeze="5"]BINGO![/SIZE] He's not here to make a case for Evolution, he's here to troll. That's evident by his opening comments, not to mention the ranting and raving that followed. Another flame baiting thread disguised as a "scientific discussion".

Um.. S.J. you DISHONEST LYING DOPE.
My last post, Like almost all MY posts was ON TOPIC: Evolution.

Yours NEVER are, you Stupid LYING Troll.

NO answer for me ON EVOLUTION and Your Juvenile/Ignorant MISUSE of "theory" you Lying/DISHONEST Clown?
You tried to DODGE the TOPIC AGAIN!

Know what a Scientific Theory is NOW idiot?
ANY TIME You're Ready TO discuss evolution, that's why I'm here and WHAT I HAVE been doing You DISHONEST DOPE.
You are a TROLL with ZERO On Topic posts.
0-fer-13
`

This was your opening post:

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

Anyone who takes issue with it is a troll. Thank you for proving my point. Feel free to respond with more name calling and more ranting and raving, as that is the purpose of this thread.

Wrong again.

1. You made another NON-TOPICAL Post:: 0-fer-15.
You're a Troll.
100% certified Clean-sweep Troll.

2. That was just PART of my Opening post.
The rest was a Gould article I highlighted/excerpted for cogent parts.
It was [indeed] addressed Especially (if not solely) to PoliticalChic because, as she knew, Gould was Pro-Evolution and/Yet she was Daily Misusing quote snippets of his OUT of Context to falsely 'demonstrate' he wasn't.
SO.... it's NOT that 'anyone who disagrees with me is Dishonest', it's that PoliticalChic Indeed WAS for her intentional Misuse of Gould.
That was the motivation for this string: To stop the continuous deception attempts/Put Gould on record for Himself.

3. I made many other Topical and Linked posts and You had Zero answer except for your Empty and Hostile posts.
You still have NOTHING to say except "no/not", withOut elaborating why.

4. So basically, as everyone else can see, you are just Too Stupid to debate and Evasive to boot.
As you never answer, just say "no/not".
But, since I can make my points by Destroying you, (if somewhat more slowly than I'd like), I'm happy to continue wailing on your Dumb ass with Clean winners like the Sciam link above - gutting the "only a Theory" fallacy of creationtards.

5. I repeat: You are a 100% TROLL. 15 posts with Zero discussing the topic at hand. You just obfuscated again in your last.
I am Absolutely here to discuss evolution and have.
YOU have been a TROLL
YOU remain a TROLL
YOUR Next post will be yet another TROLLING NON-evolution post!

`

 

[S.J.]

Um.. S.J. you DISHONEST LYING DOPE.
My last post, Like almost all MY posts was ON TOPIC: Evolution.

Yours NEVER are, you Stupid LYING Troll.

NO answer for me ON EVOLUTION and Your Juvenile/Ignorant MISUSE of "theory" you Lying/DISHONEST Clown?
You tried to DODGE the TOPIC AGAIN!

Know what a Scientific Theory is NOW idiot?
ANY TIME You're Ready TO discuss evolution, that's why I'm here and WHAT I HAVE been doing You DISHONEST DOPE.
You are a TROLL with ZERO On Topic posts.
0-fer-13
`

This was your opening post:

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

Anyone who takes issue with it is a troll. Thank you for proving my point. Feel free to respond with more name calling and more ranting and raving, as that is the purpose of this thread.

Wrong again.

1. You made another NON-TOPICAL Post:: 0-fer-15.
You're a Troll.
100% certified Clean-sweep Troll.

2. That was just PART of my Opening post.
The rest was a Gould article I highlighted/excerpted for cogent parts.
It was [indeed] addressed Especially (if not solely) to PoliticalChic because, as she knew, Gould was Pro-Evolution and/Yet she was Daily Misusing quote snippets of his OUT of Context to falsely 'demonstrate' he wasn't.
SO.... it's NOT that 'anyone who disagrees with me is Dishonest', it's that PoliticalChic Indeed WAS for her intentional Misuse of Gould.
That was the motivation for this string: To stop the continuous deception attempts/Put Gould on record for Himself.

3. I made many other Topical and Linked posts and You had Zero answer except for your Empty and Hostile posts.
You still have NOTHING to say except "no/not", withOut elaborating why.

4. So basically, as everyone else can see, you are just Too Stupid to debate and Evasive to boot.
As you never answer, just say "no/not".
But, since I can make my points by Destroying you, (if somewhat more slowly than I'd like), I'm happy to continue wailing on your Dumb ass with Clean winners like the Sciam link above - gutting the "only a Theory" fallacy of creationtards.

5. I repeat: You are a 100% TROLL. 15 posts with Zero discussing the topic at hand. You just obfuscated again in your last.
I am Absolutely here to discuss evolution and have.
YOU have been a TROLL
YOU remain a TROLL
YOUR Next post will be yet another TROLLING NON-evolution post!

`

I offered to take your points one at a time and you completely ignored my offer, focusing instead on calling everyone out who challenges your assertions or your references, even those who are basically in agreement with you (like aplcr0331). You're more interested in hurling insults at people than you are in discussing this topic like an adult. You flame bait, then whine about being bitch slapped for it. Your tantrums illustrate your level of maturity and intelligence. In other words, you need to grow the fuck up.

 

[abu afak]

S.J., AS I PREDICTED above, has made YET Another EMPTY OFF TOPIC Post.

0-fer-16.

You Moron, you don't just DISHONESTLY 'OFFER' to take my points One at a time, just DO it, SHlT-Brain.
They're ALL Still there! (after 2 Months)
That's WHY the board Is here.
DUH.
You might want to start with the OP you already TROLLED instead: You EMPTY LYING Dope.
Ever Evasion/Never content. FRAUD.

S.J. Has been a TROLL
S.J. Remains a TROLL
S.J.'s Next post will be Yet Another NON-topical TROLL!

(even his empty/Lying last wording will result in Promotion of My string topic; so WTH)
`

 

[abu afak]

Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.

Thus why they are called theories.

Refresher course time
String isn't even that old - 3 Weeks since last post - but answers clowns.
Of course, our new clowns barely rise to this level of objection.
I mean, Using the old "evolution is Only a theory" nonsense is standard dope... but saying that some humans having Blue Eyes is evidence/proof of NON-evolution is a whole new level of Stupidity.

.....

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

"...The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.
First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.
Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, 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 apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
[......]

`

 

[abu afak]

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its Supporters.
[......]
`

 

[Abishai100]

Imaginarium Index


How about 'speculation as art,' and 'art as proof of imagination,' and finally, 'imagination as evidence of curiosity?'

When I see Lego Robots, in school or in a social setting, or read a story about Video-Man (Marvel Comics), that freak that can roam around inside video games and move through wires and shoot electric beams of energy, I think to myself, "Human imagination is a sort of exercise in brain development."

After all, isn't the average housewife proud of her husband when he uses his hard-earned money simply to purchase a 'smartphone' or Samsung HDTV?





Pinocchio

 

[abu afak]

Liar. I use the term as intended and your little intolerant hate filled juvenile ass couldn't understand what I was talking about when I said theories have been dissproven in time. Theories are not facts, different words with different meanings. Then you tried to apply your textbook anti-Christian bile against me to fluff up your hollow ego.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

[.....]
Well, 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 apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
[......]​

 

[Iceweasel]

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

"...The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.
First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.
Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, 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 apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
[......]

`

So your god is Gould? Most Christians believe in evolution. Problem is it is often represented as the explanation for life, misused as a secular form of religion. Debating how it happened is the key.

 

[abu afak]

So your god is Gould? Most Christians believe in evolution. Problem is it is often represented as the explanation for life, misused as a secular form of religion. Debating how it happened is the key.

No.
The key was showing your Unbelievably Stupid and a LIAR.
A-FRIGGING-gain: You claimed "theory" as if it meant conjecture.
How many Dog Damn times?

SCIAM ad infinitum:

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-Substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the Theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."
`​

 

[IsaacNewton]

Contrary to the OP's opinion, fact does mean absolute certainty (e.g., Earth revolves around Sun). Moreover, resorting to word mincing between "what" and "how" indicates a shallowness of thought.

Ironically, the least informed Darwinists (unable to distinguish between intra- and inter-species differentiation) are also the most strident proponents. No reputable biologist has been able to put forth a credible theory as to how one species can mutate into an entirely different species. We may ultimately determine an explanation, but we are not there yet.

Ridiculous. Saying someone on the internet that is not true is quite easy. And as easily ignored as the abject ignorance it is.


"The voice of intelligence is drowned out by the roar of fear. It is ignored by the voice of desire. It is contradicted by the voice of shame. It is biased by hate and extinguished by anger. Most of all it is silenced by ignorance." - Karl A. Menninger -

 

[Iceweasel]

So your god is Gould? Most Christians believe in evolution. Problem is it is often represented as the explanation for life, misused as a secular form of religion. Debating how it happened is the key.

No.
The key was showing your Unbelievably Stupid and a LIAR.
A-FRIGGING-gain: You claimed "theory" as if it meant conjecture.
How many Dog Damn times?

SCIAM ad infinitum:

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-Substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the Theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."
`​

I haven't argued against evolution, I disagree with a secular cause. Nor do I share your religious beliefs so quoting scripture to me does no good. Massaging definitions to suit agendas is what disciples do.


scientific theory
scientific theory
a theory that can be tested and potentially disproved; failure to disprove or refute it increases confidence in it, but it cannot be considered as proven.