Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.

It has?

When?

Why wasn't it front page news?

Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?

When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?



Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?

Do you know what a scientific theory is? Gravity is still a theory.

Please, educate yourself about science, just a little bit, before you pretend to refute it.

Always with the fundie evo's and their distorted views of laws and theories. Just goes to show that the pseudoscience of evolution has spilled over into the legitimate sciences and bastardized them too. Always with the evofundies comparing gravity to evolution. They aren't even the same type of science. Evolution falls into the category of a Historical Science, which is not even on the same level as physics and astronomy my friend. Please educate yourself just a little bit before you start speaking from a point of arrogance which isn't even correct and then wind up looking foolish. This is what happens when you get all your info from biased atheist websites that twist the truth and practice historical revisionism.

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

"If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably."

"Science in and of itself means “knowledge” and knowledge can be attained through two types of sciences: observational and historical. Operational science is the broad field of science where experiments are performed and results are observed. In this field, which includes chemistry, physics, hydraulics, engineering, modern technology, etc., experiments can be done to test a hypothesis, and the experiment can be repeated to measure validity and reliability. This is the type of science that has given us computers, cell phones, televisions, and put men on the moon. Historical science includes the fields of archaeology and paleontology, to name a few. These scientists “dig up the past” and come to conclusions based on interpretations of the evidence. The interpretations are typically based on the scientist’s worldview and therefore are subjective."

 

[UltimateReality]

It has?

When?

Why wasn't it front page news?

Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?

When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?



Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?

Do you know what a scientific theory is? Gravity is still a theory.

Please, educate yourself about science, just a little bit, before you pretend to refute it.

The gross ignorance of fundies regarding their arguments against subjects they don't understand seems to define the creationist lot. Fundies' confusion about terms such as "theory" is a result of blind obedience to creationist ministries with an overt agenda of placating the ignorance of creationists. This is demonstrated clearly among the creationists in this thread who statements such as: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact,". They demonstrate a willful ignorance of science and a regrettable allegiance to their creationist ministries which are clueless regarding the meanings of the words they're using.

"Theory" does not mean a simple hypothesis, or a guess, or a proposal. Further, a scientific theory does not gain does not gain status as a scientific law with the arrival or accumulation of more recent or better defined evidence. A theory always remains a theory and will never become a scientific law. Similarly, a scientific law will remain a scientific law.

The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.

A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.

Omigosh!!! You did not just cut and paste this nonsense from the National Academy of Science!!! Typical materialistic propaganda. Don't be fooled by scientific revisionism. A theory becomes a law if the body of repeatable experiments supporting the theory becomes so large that the theory can be said to apply in every instance. The theory of gravity is now the law of gravity here on earth. It is not violated here EVER. However, on the astronomical level, there does appear to be observed instances where a more comprehensive theory of universal gravity is needed. The biggest joke of this foolish comparison is that we can actually set up experiments and test our predictions about the way gravity behaves. We can't set up experiments to test for natural selection because the TOE is a historical science. The events happened in the past and we can only look at evidence from a prior event and make deductions about the causes of that prior outcome. It is utterly foolish and silly when materialist attempt to compare the operational sciences with historical sciences and pretend they are somehow on the same level. Hollie, you really are so gullible that you fall for this nonsense and believe it hook, line and sinker. They got you brainwashed good.


The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the public good.

"It is important for us to understand the mindset of the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) because they are the ones whose alleged expertise on “global warming” will justify the Democrats’ cap-and-tax legislation. Over the last 50 years, the NAS hierarchy has become one of the most poisonous organizations in America, a nest of atheists who base their pseudo-scientific dogma on the arbitrary rejection of God, and not upon empirical evidence and the scientific method."

The Atheist-Dominated National Academy of Sciences | Conservative News, Views & Books

It is really sad when organizations like this with an agenda actually gain so much influence that they are able to bastardize the legitimate sciences and force policies in public education that pukes out brainwashed zombies like Hollie and NP. They are so deep in it they don't yet realize the mind fu... dge that has been played on them.

 

[newpolitics]

Do you know what a scientific theory is? Gravity is still a theory.

Please, educate yourself about science, just a little bit, before you pretend to refute it.

The gross ignorance of fundies regarding their arguments against subjects they don't understand seems to define the creationist lot. Fundies' confusion about terms such as "theory" is a result of blind obedience to creationist ministries with an overt agenda of placating the ignorance of creationists. This is demonstrated clearly among the creationists in this thread who statements such as: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact,". They demonstrate a willful ignorance of science and a regrettable allegiance to their creationist ministries which are clueless regarding the meanings of the words they're using.

"Theory" does not mean a simple hypothesis, or a guess, or a proposal. Further, a scientific theory does not gain does not gain status as a scientific law with the arrival or accumulation of more recent or better defined evidence. A theory always remains a theory and will never become a scientific law. Similarly, a scientific law will remain a scientific law.

The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.

A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.

Omigosh!!! You did not just cut and paste this nonsense from the National Academy of Science!!! Typical materialistic propaganda. Don't be fooled by scientific revisionism. A theory becomes a law if the body of repeatable experiments supporting the theory becomes so large that the theory can be said to apply in every instance. The theory of gravity is now the law of gravity here on earth. It is not violated here EVER. However, on the astronomical level, there does appear to be observed instances where a more comprehensive theory of universal gravity is needed. The biggest joke of this foolish comparison is that we can actually set up experiments and test our predictions about the way gravity behaves. We can't set up experiments to test for natural selection because the TOE is a historical science. The events happened in the past and we can only look at evidence from a prior event and make deductions about the causes of that prior outcome. It is utterly foolish and silly when materialist attempt to compare the operational sciences with historical sciences and pretend they are somehow on the same level. Hollie, you really are so gullible that you fall for this nonsense and believe it hook, line and sinker. They got you brainwashed good.


The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the public good.

"It is important for us to understand the mindset of the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) because they are the ones whose alleged expertise on “global warming” will justify the Democrats’ cap-and-tax legislation. Over the last 50 years, the NAS hierarchy has become one of the most poisonous organizations in America, a nest of atheists who base their pseudo-scientific dogma on the arbitrary rejection of God, and not upon empirical evidence and the scientific method."

The Atheist-Dominated National Academy of Sciences | Conservative News, Views & Books

It is really sad when organizations like this with an agenda actually gain so much influence that they are able to bastardize the legitimate sciences and force policies in public education that pukes out brainwashed zombies like Hollie and NP. They are so deep in it they don't yet realize the mind fu... dge that has been played on them.

"A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease." (wikipedia)

Before you criticize my source, wikipedia has been found to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News


A theory never becomes a law. A theory is used to describe "why" or "how" an observed phenomenon happens, not that it happens. A law is simply a description of something that does happen (ie, 2nd law of thermodynamics). Therefore, a theory and a law are categorically distinct, and one never becomes the other. Theories are often supported by laws. There could be a theory to describe why the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists, but this theory would never become a law, as this would be a categorical error.

The theory of gravity has not become a law. Newton's universal law of gravitation is a very specific mathematical description of gravity within certain parameters. It does not apply in all instances, such as where the general theory of relativity is concerned. So, it is not universally applicable, therefore, nor is it a law. It is called a law, because for what it describes, it is always true.

None of this actually matters, because it fails to address the most important point in all of this: Lonestar's use of the word "theory" is incompatabile with any use of the word "theory" in science.

The fact that you attack the NAS on your own subjective grounds is laughable. This is an ad hominem attack at its finest. The definition put forth by them is firmly operational.

 

[newpolitics]

The interpretations are typically based on the scientist’s worldview and therefore are subjective."[/I]

This begs a philosophical discussion, because this sentence is asinine.

Are you positing the view that there is no objective reality? Certainly you have to concede that at some point, the amount of evidence (ie, matter in the universe) will reach such a point that a theory to explain these facts is justified (the universe exists)? I gave the broadest example to make a point: we are not entitled to our own facts. Facts are objective. Vacillation between competing explanations becomes less and less possible with the more facts you have corroborating one certain theory or explanation. This is because of one simple fact: there are many scientists, not just one, and consensus is an important feature of the scientific method in establishing a theory to be credible. In other words, a scientist's worldview is not important in determining the nature of scientific theory. They stand or fall under the weight of the evidence, which is assessed and evaluated by many, with each onlooking scientist having total incentive to try and disprove the theory. You're implication that the theory evolution is a kind of group think fueled by materialistic outlooks is a copout to explain why so many highly educated people across several disciplines of science all converge on evolution.

There is an objective reality outside of our subjective one, and science attempts, better than any method known, to reach this, without confirmation bias. This is the miracle of science. It gets us past our own cognitive biases. Religion, is the opposite. It is the projection of all of our egoistic urges onto reality, and trying to pass this off as "objective." It is the greatest psychological ploy of all time. The irony is that religious people then attack science for something they themselves are the grandmasters of, without realizing us. Funny that you made that quote about ignorance. Apply it to yourself, please.

 

[pjnlsn]

So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.

Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.

Please try again.

So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?

Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?

No true scotsman. Or: Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is.

The question is more meaningful phrased this way: If God made animals and man, why does one do this, and think like this, and the other not, such that some call one rational and the other irrational?

However, despite the tone of some of your posts in response to others about this, an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).

That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.

 

[UltimateReality]

The gross ignorance of fundies regarding their arguments against subjects they don't understand seems to define the creationist lot. Fundies' confusion about terms such as "theory" is a result of blind obedience to creationist ministries with an overt agenda of placating the ignorance of creationists. This is demonstrated clearly among the creationists in this thread who statements such as: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact,". They demonstrate a willful ignorance of science and a regrettable allegiance to their creationist ministries which are clueless regarding the meanings of the words they're using.

"Theory" does not mean a simple hypothesis, or a guess, or a proposal. Further, a scientific theory does not gain does not gain status as a scientific law with the arrival or accumulation of more recent or better defined evidence. A theory always remains a theory and will never become a scientific law. Similarly, a scientific law will remain a scientific law.

The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Omigosh!!! You did not just cut and paste this nonsense from the National Academy of Science!!! Typical materialistic propaganda. Don't be fooled by scientific revisionism. A theory becomes a law if the body of repeatable experiments supporting the theory becomes so large that the theory can be said to apply in every instance. The theory of gravity is now the law of gravity here on earth. It is not violated here EVER. However, on the astronomical level, there does appear to be observed instances where a more comprehensive theory of universal gravity is needed. The biggest joke of this foolish comparison is that we can actually set up experiments and test our predictions about the way gravity behaves. We can't set up experiments to test for natural selection because the TOE is a historical science. The events happened in the past and we can only look at evidence from a prior event and make deductions about the causes of that prior outcome. It is utterly foolish and silly when materialist attempt to compare the operational sciences with historical sciences and pretend they are somehow on the same level. Hollie, you really are so gullible that you fall for this nonsense and believe it hook, line and sinker. They got you brainwashed good.


The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the public good.

"It is important for us to understand the mindset of the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) because they are the ones whose alleged expertise on “global warming” will justify the Democrats’ cap-and-tax legislation. Over the last 50 years, the NAS hierarchy has become one of the most poisonous organizations in America, a nest of atheists who base their pseudo-scientific dogma on the arbitrary rejection of God, and not upon empirical evidence and the scientific method."

The Atheist-Dominated National Academy of Sciences | Conservative News, Views & Books

It is really sad when organizations like this with an agenda actually gain so much influence that they are able to bastardize the legitimate sciences and force policies in public education that pukes out brainwashed zombies like Hollie and NP. They are so deep in it they don't yet realize the mind fu... dge that has been played on them.

"A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease." (wikipedia)

Before you criticize my source, wikipedia has been found to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica.

And I have some swamp land in Florida I can sell you.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News


A theory never becomes a law.

Oh you poor dear. More bastardized pseudoscience from the NAS. So let me get this straight... The apple fell on Newton's head it was immediately proclaimed the law of gravity. You and Hollie need to lay of the NAS koolaid.

A theory is used to describe "why" or "how" an observed phenomenon happens, not that it happens. A law is simply a description of something that does happen (ie, 2nd law of thermodynamics). Therefore, a theory and a law are categorically distinct, and one never becomes the other. Theories are often supported by laws. There could be a theory to describe why the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists, but this theory would never become a law, as this would be a categorical error.

The theory of gravity has not become a law. Newton's universal law of gravitation is a very specific mathematical description of gravity within certain parameters. It does not apply in all instances, such as where the general theory of relativity is concerned. So, it is not universally applicable, therefore, nor is it a law. It is called a law, because for what it describes, it is always true.

None of this actually matters, because it fails to address the most important point in all of this: Lonestar's use of the word "theory" is incompatabile with any use of the word "theory" in science.

The fact that you attack the NAS on your own subjective grounds is laughable. This is an ad hominem attack at its finest. The definition put forth by them is firmly operational.

Just keep repeating that over and over and maybe it will come true like it does in Hollie's world.

 

[UltimateReality]

The interpretations are typically based on the scientist’s worldview and therefore are subjective."[/I]

This begs a philosophical discussion, because this sentence is asinine.

Are you positing the view that there is no objective reality? Certainly you have to concede that at some point, the amount of evidence (ie, matter in the universe) will reach such a point that a theory to explain these facts is justified (the universe exists)? I gave the broadest example to make a point: we are not entitled to our own facts. Facts are objective. Vacillation between competing explanations becomes less and less possible with the more facts you have corroborating one certain theory or explanation. This is because of one simple fact: there are many scientists, not just one, and consensus is an important feature of the scientific method in establishing a theory to be credible. In other words, a scientist's worldview is not important in determining the nature of scientific theory. They stand or fall under the weight of the evidence, which is assessed and evaluated by many, with each onlooking scientist having total incentive to try and disprove the theory. You're implication that the theory evolution is a kind of group think fueled by materialistic outlooks is a copout to explain why so many highly educated people across several disciplines of science all converge on evolution.

There is an objective reality outside of our subjective one, and science attempts, better than any method known, to reach this, without confirmation bias. This is the miracle of science. It gets us past our own cognitive biases. Religion, is the opposite. It is the projection of all of our egoistic urges onto reality, and trying to pass this off as "objective." It is the greatest psychological ploy of all time. The irony is that religious people then attack science for something they themselves are the grandmasters of, without realizing us. Funny that you made that quote about ignorance. Apply it to yourself, please.

More materialistic brainwashing. There are 3 other worldviews besides materialism and depending on which one the scientist claims, his interpretations of "evidence" will be tainted by his pre-assumptions about the world. Are you claiming that materialists have cornered the market on Ultimate Reality??? That is really laughable. The NAS religious viewpoints, i.e., materialism and darwinism, drive their "scientific" outcomes.

 

[pjnlsn]

Evolution falls into the category of a Historical Science, which is not even on the same level as physics and astronomy my friend.

Barring possible difference in how words are defined between writer and readers, this is true. But lest anyone put an undue amount of importance on this, that Biological History is less certain than Biological Fact is a thing largely unavoidable.

 

[newpolitics]

Omigosh!!! You did not just cut and paste this nonsense from the National Academy of Science!!! Typical materialistic propaganda. Don't be fooled by scientific revisionism. A theory becomes a law if the body of repeatable experiments supporting the theory becomes so large that the theory can be said to apply in every instance. The theory of gravity is now the law of gravity here on earth. It is not violated here EVER. However, on the astronomical level, there does appear to be observed instances where a more comprehensive theory of universal gravity is needed. The biggest joke of this foolish comparison is that we can actually set up experiments and test our predictions about the way gravity behaves. We can't set up experiments to test for natural selection because the TOE is a historical science. The events happened in the past and we can only look at evidence from a prior event and make deductions about the causes of that prior outcome. It is utterly foolish and silly when materialist attempt to compare the operational sciences with historical sciences and pretend they are somehow on the same level. Hollie, you really are so gullible that you fall for this nonsense and believe it hook, line and sinker. They got you brainwashed good.


The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the public good.

"It is important for us to understand the mindset of the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) because they are the ones whose alleged expertise on “global warming” will justify the Democrats’ cap-and-tax legislation. Over the last 50 years, the NAS hierarchy has become one of the most poisonous organizations in America, a nest of atheists who base their pseudo-scientific dogma on the arbitrary rejection of God, and not upon empirical evidence and the scientific method."

The Atheist-Dominated National Academy of Sciences | Conservative News, Views & Books

It is really sad when organizations like this with an agenda actually gain so much influence that they are able to bastardize the legitimate sciences and force policies in public education that pukes out brainwashed zombies like Hollie and NP. They are so deep in it they don't yet realize the mind fu... dge that has been played on them.

"A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease." (wikipedia)

Before you criticize my source, wikipedia has been found to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica.

And I have some swamp land in Florida I can sell you.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News


A theory never becomes a law.

Oh you poor dear. More bastardized pseudoscience from the NAS. So let me get this straight... The apple fell on Newton's head it was immediately proclaimed the law of gravity. You and Hollie need to lay of the NAS koolaid.

A theory is used to describe "why" or "how" an observed phenomenon happens, not that it happens. A law is simply a description of something that does happen (ie, 2nd law of thermodynamics). Therefore, a theory and a law are categorically distinct, and one never becomes the other. Theories are often supported by laws. There could be a theory to describe why the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists, but this theory would never become a law, as this would be a categorical error.

The theory of gravity has not become a law. Newton's universal law of gravitation is a very specific mathematical description of gravity within certain parameters. It does not apply in all instances, such as where the general theory of relativity is concerned. So, it is not universally applicable, therefore, nor is it a law. It is called a law, because for what it describes, it is always true.

None of this actually matters, because it fails to address the most important point in all of this: Lonestar's use of the word "theory" is incompatabile with any use of the word "theory" in science.

The fact that you attack the NAS on your own subjective grounds is laughable. This is an ad hominem attack at its finest. The definition put forth by them is firmly operational.

Just keep repeating that over and over and maybe it will come true like it does in Hollie's world.

You have shown yourself to be a charlatan. You are not worth debating, and are guilty of every piece of ridicule you throw at others. For the record, I have never consulted nor was even familiar with NAS until now. But, even so, I can simply say you're rejection of its definition is an ad hominem attack. You don't address the actual definition, you just attack the organization who produced it, which is meaningless, considering this definition is not special in any way, and could be found any numbers of places, so you're attack on the NAS is moot in trying to defile this definition.

Once again, you don't address any of my actual points, because you can't. You just use emoticons and so "oh my poor dear" and laugh, just like a charlatan would. You only show yourself to be a complete snob who doesn't care what the other side is arguing. You ignore all counter-arguments, and continue on your merry way. As a creationists, I guess you have to, because you have no real arguments of your own. Just a bunch of vacuous attacks on evolution that demonstrate a total unwillingness to accept reality.

 

[newpolitics]

The interpretations are typically based on the scientist’s worldview and therefore are subjective."[/I]

This begs a philosophical discussion, because this sentence is asinine.

Are you positing the view that there is no objective reality? Certainly you have to concede that at some point, the amount of evidence (ie, matter in the universe) will reach such a point that a theory to explain these facts is justified (the universe exists)? I gave the broadest example to make a point: we are not entitled to our own facts. Facts are objective. Vacillation between competing explanations becomes less and less possible with the more facts you have corroborating one certain theory or explanation. This is because of one simple fact: there are many scientists, not just one, and consensus is an important feature of the scientific method in establishing a theory to be credible. In other words, a scientist's worldview is not important in determining the nature of scientific theory. They stand or fall under the weight of the evidence, which is assessed and evaluated by many, with each onlooking scientist having total incentive to try and disprove the theory. You're implication that the theory evolution is a kind of group think fueled by materialistic outlooks is a copout to explain why so many highly educated people across several disciplines of science all converge on evolution.

There is an objective reality outside of our subjective one, and science attempts, better than any method known, to reach this, without confirmation bias. This is the miracle of science. It gets us past our own cognitive biases. Religion, is the opposite. It is the projection of all of our egoistic urges onto reality, and trying to pass this off as "objective." It is the greatest psychological ploy of all time. The irony is that religious people then attack science for something they themselves are the grandmasters of, without realizing us. Funny that you made that quote about ignorance. Apply it to yourself, please.

More materialistic brainwashing. There are 3 other worldviews besides materialism and depending on which one the scientist claims, his interpretations of "evidence" will be tainted by his pre-assumptions about the world. Are you claiming that materialists have cornered the market on Ultimate Reality??? That is really laughable. The NAS religious viewpoints, i.e., materialism and darwinism, drive their "scientific" outcomes.

This actually is hilarious. Do you have evidence of anything besides that which exists in this universe? No. No one does, yet... you KNOW that a god exists outside of space and time, because of a book. How cute. The only place these three other world views exist are in the mind, as they certainly don't exist in reality.

 

[newpolitics]

If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.

The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.

Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.

Nope. Did you read any of what I wrote? I guess I have to write it again, because you can't read.

It wouldn't matter what he thought about his own theory. This is an argument from authority.

The argument from authority isn't excused, simply because that authority is the author of his own theory, in this case, Darwin and the TOE. There is no such stipulation anywhere for this logical debate fallacy. If you can find it, let me know, otherwise, drop this point. It is fruitless.

I have to interject here. If is fairly common for someone "making up" a theory to think about all the objections that others might have for the theory and attempt to head them off with a rebuttal ahead of time. Darwin did this numerous times in his little fictional book. One of the mistakes he made was that he spoke of the future and his belief that science would develop and discover more evidence to support his theory. At the time he wrote OOTS, they had barely "scratched the surface" of the fossil record and they knew very little about the workings of the cell. Unfortunately for Darwin, hundreds of thousands of fossils later and there still is no more better evidence in the fossil record for his theory.

Except for the small fact that, from fossils, geology, and DNA, there is a lot of evidence that has been gotten since Darwin's' time, corroborating and strengthening his theory to the point where it is almost universally accepted amongst scientists. You can sit there and deny the evidence for evolution all day, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you don't accept it because you don't want to, because it would hurt your little theory about a magic man in the sky willing things into existence.

 

[Hollie]

The gross ignorance of fundies regarding their arguments against subjects they don't understand seems to define the creationist lot. Fundies' confusion about terms such as "theory" is a result of blind obedience to creationist ministries with an overt agenda of placating the ignorance of creationists. This is demonstrated clearly among the creationists in this thread who statements such as: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact,". They demonstrate a willful ignorance of science and a regrettable allegiance to their creationist ministries which are clueless regarding the meanings of the words they're using.

"Theory" does not mean a simple hypothesis, or a guess, or a proposal. Further, a scientific theory does not gain does not gain status as a scientific law with the arrival or accumulation of more recent or better defined evidence. A theory always remains a theory and will never become a scientific law. Similarly, a scientific law will remain a scientific law.

The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Omigosh!!! You did not just cut and paste this nonsense from the National Academy of Science!!! Typical materialistic propaganda. Don't be fooled by scientific revisionism. A theory becomes a law if the body of repeatable experiments supporting the theory becomes so large that the theory can be said to apply in every instance. The theory of gravity is now the law of gravity here on earth. It is not violated here EVER. However, on the astronomical level, there does appear to be observed instances where a more comprehensive theory of universal gravity is needed. The biggest joke of this foolish comparison is that we can actually set up experiments and test our predictions about the way gravity behaves. We can't set up experiments to test for natural selection because the TOE is a historical science. The events happened in the past and we can only look at evidence from a prior event and make deductions about the causes of that prior outcome. It is utterly foolish and silly when materialist attempt to compare the operational sciences with historical sciences and pretend they are somehow on the same level. Hollie, you really are so gullible that you fall for this nonsense and believe it hook, line and sinker. They got you brainwashed good.


The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the public good.

"It is important for us to understand the mindset of the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) because they are the ones whose alleged expertise on “global warming” will justify the Democrats’ cap-and-tax legislation. Over the last 50 years, the NAS hierarchy has become one of the most poisonous organizations in America, a nest of atheists who base their pseudo-scientific dogma on the arbitrary rejection of God, and not upon empirical evidence and the scientific method."

The Atheist-Dominated National Academy of Sciences | Conservative News, Views & Books

It is really sad when organizations like this with an agenda actually gain so much influence that they are able to bastardize the legitimate sciences and force policies in public education that pukes out brainwashed zombies like Hollie and NP. They are so deep in it they don't yet realize the mind fu... dge that has been played on them.

"A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease." (wikipedia)

Before you criticize my source, wikipedia has been found to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News


A theory never becomes a law. A theory is used to describe "why" or "how" an observed phenomenon happens, not that it happens. A law is simply a description of something that does happen (ie, 2nd law of thermodynamics). Therefore, a theory and a law are categorically distinct, and one never becomes the other. Theories are often supported by laws. There could be a theory to describe why the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists, but this theory would never become a law, as this would be a categorical error.

The theory of gravity has not become a law. Newton's universal law of gravitation is a very specific mathematical description of gravity within certain parameters. It does not apply in all instances, such as where the general theory of relativity is concerned. So, it is not universally applicable, therefore, nor is it a law. It is called a law, because for what it describes, it is always true.

None of this actually matters, because it fails to address the most important point in all of this: Lonestar's use of the word "theory" is incompatabile with any use of the word "theory" in science.

The fact that you attack the NAS on your own subjective grounds is laughable. This is an ad hominem attack at its finest. The definition put forth by them is firmly operational.

It's certainly predictable that a science loathing Christian creationist would react in panic to an organization that promotes science and learning. The greatest threat to fundies is knowledge and enlightenment. Promoting knowledge absolutely terrifies creationists because their need to further fear and ignorance is directly challenged.

This is why creationists react so negatively to science and understanding and why they are forced to attack science in the defense of their gods. In every instance, creationist supernaturalism is shown to be a litany of fallacious reasoning, describing impossible mechanics, tossing away and dismissing physical evidence, making meaningless comparisons, until finally when reason pushes them into a corner where their unsupported and unsupportable claims are again, no linger defendable, they escape into the "God did it" safety net.

We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present. So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.

Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.
That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who see their gods being made unusable and unnecessary and so react with tirades, posting of gargantuan fonts and juvenile tirades.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.

This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.

But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why he was saying what he did.

If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.

The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.

Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.

Nope. Did you read any of what I wrote? I guess I have to write it again, because you can't read.

It wouldn't matter what he thought about his own theory. This is an argument from authority.

The argument from authority isn't excused, simply because that authority is the author of his own theory, in this case, Darwin and the TOE. There is no such stipulation anywhere for this logical debate fallacy. If you can find it, let me know, otherwise, drop this point. It is fruitless.

Yes an argument against one's own theory isn't excused.

You can write it a hundred times it does not make it true. It's your opinion.

Fact is Darwin was troubled by the lack of transistional fossils and admitted this would be a huge problem. And it is.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Evolution has been proven. You have demonstrated true ignorance regarding evolutionary theory and science so your nonsensical comment is not surprising.

It has?

When?

Why wasn't it front page news?

Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?

When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?



Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?

Do you know what a scientific theory is? Gravity is still a theory.

Please, educate yourself about science, just a little bit, before you pretend to refute it.

And your point is?

A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment.

In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment.

So your point is moot.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.

Please try again.

So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?

Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?

No true scotsman. Or: Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is.

The question is more meaningful phrased this way: If God made animals and man, why does one do this, and think like this, and the other not, such that some call one rational and the other irrational?

However, despite the tone of some of your posts in response to others about this, an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).

That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.

Becasue animals act and react on instinct. Humans use logic and reason.

 

[Hollie]

If he has doubts about the gaps in his own theory. It does hurt his theory.

The theory is standing strong because evolutionist will not accept the fact that they cannot prove evolution no matter how hard they try.

Yes he was honestly saying he has doubts about a big aspect of his theory.

Nope. Did you read any of what I wrote? I guess I have to write it again, because you can't read.

It wouldn't matter what he thought about his own theory. This is an argument from authority.

The argument from authority isn't excused, simply because that authority is the author of his own theory, in this case, Darwin and the TOE. There is no such stipulation anywhere for this logical debate fallacy. If you can find it, let me know, otherwise, drop this point. It is fruitless.

Yes an argument against one's own theory isn't excused.

You can write it a hundred times it does not make it true. It's your opinion.

Fact is Darwin was troubled by the lack of transistional fossils and admitted this would be a huge problem. And it is.

Unfortunately, being a clone of the creationist ministries with an appalling lack of a science vocabulary, you're unable to understand the nonsense you promote as an enlightened view of evolutionary science.

The fact is, your "facts" are not facts at all but boilerplate creationist cut and paste. The creationist "transitional fosill" argument has long ago been debunked as nonsensical.

 

[Hollie]

It has?

When?

Why wasn't it front page news?

Why is the "theory of evolution" still called a "theory"?

When and where have Scientists observed the random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?



Of course I don't expect you to actually answer any of these questions. You haven't answered a single question I posed yet. Why should now be any different?

Do you know what a scientific theory is? Gravity is still a theory.

Please, educate yourself about science, just a little bit, before you pretend to refute it.

And your point is?

A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment.

In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment.

So your point is moot.

It's obvious you feel that your religious propaganda is under scrutiny and causes you to lash out. There's no need, really. You're entitled to belief in supernaturalism and magic that defines the spirit world of gods, jinn and supermagicalism, but bring those elements into a discussion of reason and rationality and your claims are taken as religious dogma.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Nope. Did you read any of what I wrote? I guess I have to write it again, because you can't read.

It wouldn't matter what he thought about his own theory. This is an argument from authority.

The argument from authority isn't excused, simply because that authority is the author of his own theory, in this case, Darwin and the TOE. There is no such stipulation anywhere for this logical debate fallacy. If you can find it, let me know, otherwise, drop this point. It is fruitless.

Yes an argument against one's own theory isn't excused.

You can write it a hundred times it does not make it true. It's your opinion.

Fact is Darwin was troubled by the lack of transistional fossils and admitted this would be a huge problem. And it is.

Unfortunately, being a clone of the creationist ministries with an appalling lack of a science vocabulary, you're unable to understand the nonsense you promote as an enlightened view of evolutionary science.

The fact is, your "facts" are not facts at all but boilerplate creationist cut and paste. The creationist "transitional fosill" argument has long ago been debunked as nonsensical.

Stop projecting and please stop pretending you know anything about me. Your constant misrepresentation of my character is annoying. But seeing that's your only weapon I can see why you use it.

Your insults toward me does nothing for your credibility or lack thereof.

Please show me the millions of transitional fossils that have been found and while your at it show me proof that scientist created life out of nothing.

Answer these questions without your usual cut and paste crap:

Which evolved first, male or female?

If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can’t all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?

Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Do you know what a scientific theory is? Gravity is still a theory.

Please, educate yourself about science, just a little bit, before you pretend to refute it.

And your point is?

A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment.

In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment.

So your point is moot.

It's obvious you feel that your religious propaganda is under scrutiny and causes you to lash out. There's no need, really. You're entitled to belief in supernaturalism and magic that defines the spirit world of gods, jinn and supermagicalism, but bring those elements into a discussion of reason and rationality and your claims are taken as religious dogma.

I've made no mention of religion. Ah I see another strawman is being created or perhaps another lame attempt at pettifogging the issue.

 

[Hollie]

And your point is?

A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment.

In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment.

So your point is moot.

It's obvious you feel that your religious propaganda is under scrutiny and causes you to lash out. There's no need, really. You're entitled to belief in supernaturalism and magic that defines the spirit world of gods, jinn and supermagicalism, but bring those elements into a discussion of reason and rationality and your claims are taken as religious dogma.

I've made no mention of religion. Ah I see another strawman is being created or perhaps another lame attempt at pettifogging the issue.

Yet another failed attempt to conceal your religious agenda. It's a typical pattern of behavior where Christian creationists will go to extensive lengths to denigrate science in the hope that will somehow promote their gods. That is why fundies erect legions of strawman arguments proposing perceived flaws in Darwin's TOE while they can't seem to understand that the theory has been confirmed for the last century by science and experimentation.