Do majority of Republicans think Theory of Evolution is a fact ?

[bripat9643]

I wonder about that question, especially does Donald Trump think evolution is a fact ?

A few days ago I've read that article and I thought it has exaggerated opinions about Republicans but sometimes I agree with that. You can look that article here:

Republicans

Most Republicans do believe the theory if evolution is valid.

Typical anti-science Trumpette.

Huh? How are you "anti-science" if you accept the theory of evolution?

 

[RealDave]

I wonder about that question, especially does Donald Trump think evolution is a fact ?

A few days ago I've read that article and I thought it has exaggerated opinions about Republicans but sometimes I agree with that. You can look that article here:

Republicans

Most Republicans do believe the theory if evolution is valid.

Typical anti-science Trumpette.

Huh? How are you "anti-science" if you accept the theory of evolution?

Very weak, dipstick. You are the anti science people.

I believe that evolution is real. You don't.

I believe Global Warming is real, you don;lt

I believe the burning coal kills people, you don't.

You voted for the anti science crowd. So own up to it.

 

[gtopa1]

I wonder about that question, especially does Donald Trump think evolution is a fact ?

A few days ago I've read that article and I thought it has exaggerated opinions about Republicans but sometimes I agree with that. You can look that article here:

Republicans

Question, why are there still apes?

God saw that they were good.

Greg

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Of course the Theory of Evolution is a fact; it's existential. It exists and anyone can read it and everything and all manners of things supporting/about it, and one can read it in all its vast detail or read a brief summary of it (though doing the latter hardly positions one to refute it). It doesn't matter whether one accepts it as an accurate depiction of how life evolved/evolves.

• Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life
  
• The Mathematics of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: 1859 and 150 Years Later
  
• Mathematical Theory of Evolution
  
• Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and Its Moral Purpose
  
• Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution (this is a summary)
  
• A brief guide to Darwin’s theory of natural selection (evolution)
  
• Brief Introduction to Evolutionary Theory
• A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Level
  
• Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants: the hologenome theory of evolution
  
• Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution
  
• Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences
  
• Hermann Joseph Muller's Study of X-rays as a Mutagen

To be sure, the Theory of Evolution as Darwin presented it has itself been refined since Darwin's day; thus merely reading On the Origin of Species isn't going to do the trick, as it were, for making one fully informed on the matter.

How Darwin envisioned evolution

The Integral Model of Evolution (the most recent refinement of the idea)

I wonder about that question, especially does Donald Trump think evolution is a fact ?

As for what Republicans think about the Theory of Evolution, well, I have no way to say credibly what they think. For all I know, they perceive it to be every bit as linear a thing as Darwin did. Hell, I don't know even whether most of them who'd refute it's validity have even read so much as the documents cited above, to say nothing of many or most of the myriad others that support (scientifically and with sound reasoning, not merely judgmentally) the Theory, so as to position themselves to be in legitimate mental state of comprehensive understanding about it to in turn refute it. Moreover, I don't know whether Republicans on the whole are fully aware of how the Scientific Method works.

As for what Trump thinks about the Theory of Evolution, well, I'll just say that as goes math and science (natural or social), the guy doesn't strike me as being anything even close to a prolific reader of rigorously developed content pertaining to those disciplines. But for his being POTUS, nobody would care what he thinks or might have to say about the Theory of Evolution. That he is POTUS doesn't make what he has to say any more meritorious; however, his being so can make his statements ominous, depending on what he says.

Evolution is a theory...not a good one but nonetheless...a theory. It's not a fact because the theory has many holes and a lot of missing fossils.

I wondered how long it'd take for someone to make that insipid remark. Now I know how long.

• "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words
  
• The Scientific Method: Hypothesis to Theory
  
• What Is a Scientific Theory?
• Overview of the Research Process

Ive been studying stratigraphy for 25 years. I have no proof that evolution is law.

OT:
Well, by all means, point me to your peer reviewed and published papers on the matter. I'm interested in seeing what your study of the topic has revealed and contributed to the body of knowledge on the matter. Surely you've not dedicated 25 years of your life to studying something and had nothing of merit and original to contribute to the field?

That aside, stratigraphy, the study of layered rocks and their temporal implications, doesn't purport to be or provide proof of the Theory of Evolution (ToE). With regard to the ToE, It's merely used as part of the means for dating things. Typically and in the context of the ToE, it's used to corroborate/supplement the dating of fossils and climatic/geologic events. Asserting/confirming that "such and such" a creature, event or plant occurred before or after a given point in time, or at a given point in time, in and of itself says noting one way or another about the veracity of the ToE. It's no surprise, then, that your study of stratigraphy has not led to proof of the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

The ToE obtains its soundness by dint of sound and rigorous research having confirmed the verity of myriad testable propositions (predictions/assertions) logically following from the ToE's core and implied assertions. That is how science validates assertions such as those made in the ToE.

Frankly, I don't even know why you mentioned stratigraphy, let alone whatever constitutes your "study" of it, in response to my post.

1. My post directly addresses the question in the title, not whether the ToE accurately describes how life came to be and how living creatures and plants have changed over time as a result of a host of natural influences.
2. How the hell anyone thinks the study of rocks, as contrasted with the study of lifeforms (current and former) found among them, would ever prove anything having to do with the evolution of lifeforms is beyond me. I can only hope you didn't undertake your stratigraphic studies with the expectation that it'd yield proof (or refutation, for that matter) of the ToE.
3. While I have nothing specific to say about your 25-year-long "study" of stratigraphy, I will say that nobody who's capable of and has been rigorously and credibly pursuing serious scientific study of any sort and for any period of time would remark of the ToE that "it's a theory not a fact." Anyone making such a remark tacitly testifies that they do not know what a scientific theory, as contrasted with the layman's meaning of the word "theory," is.
   
   Insofar as you made that statement and ostensibly have been "studying" stratigraphy for 25 years, it's clear you've got a lot more studying to do, one thing being developing a much better understanding of the scientific method and how scientific theories come about. In doing that, I suggest you commence with the four documents I linked in post 120. Absent that, I suggest you design, publish and obtain from the science community acceptance of a wholly new framework for scientific research and theory development and acceptance/confirmation.
4. In science, laws and theories are not the same things. So, of course, you have no proof that the ToE is law. It's not a law of science; it's a science theory. That distinction too would be lost on or conflated by any serious scientist or student of science.
   
   

Wrong. It is still a theory....not law.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Of course the Theory of Evolution is a fact; it's existential. It exists and anyone can read it and everything and all manners of things supporting/about it, and one can read it in all its vast detail or read a brief summary of it (though doing the latter hardly positions one to refute it). It doesn't matter whether one accepts it as an accurate depiction of how life evolved/evolves.

• Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life
  
• The Mathematics of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: 1859 and 150 Years Later
  
• Mathematical Theory of Evolution
  
• Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and Its Moral Purpose
  
• Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution (this is a summary)
  
• A brief guide to Darwin’s theory of natural selection (evolution)
  
• Brief Introduction to Evolutionary Theory
• A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Level
  
• Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants: the hologenome theory of evolution
  
• Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution
  
• Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences
  
• Hermann Joseph Muller's Study of X-rays as a Mutagen

To be sure, the Theory of Evolution as Darwin presented it has itself been refined since Darwin's day; thus merely reading On the Origin of Species isn't going to do the trick, as it were, for making one fully informed on the matter.

How Darwin envisioned evolution

The Integral Model of Evolution (the most recent refinement of the idea)

I wonder about that question, especially does Donald Trump think evolution is a fact ?

As for what Republicans think about the Theory of Evolution, well, I have no way to say credibly what they think. For all I know, they perceive it to be every bit as linear a thing as Darwin did. Hell, I don't know even whether most of them who'd refute it's validity have even read so much as the documents cited above, to say nothing of many or most of the myriad others that support (scientifically and with sound reasoning, not merely judgmentally) the Theory, so as to position themselves to be in legitimate mental state of comprehensive understanding about it to in turn refute it. Moreover, I don't know whether Republicans on the whole are fully aware of how the Scientific Method works.

As for what Trump thinks about the Theory of Evolution, well, I'll just say that as goes math and science (natural or social), the guy doesn't strike me as being anything even close to a prolific reader of rigorously developed content pertaining to those disciplines. But for his being POTUS, nobody would care what he thinks or might have to say about the Theory of Evolution. That he is POTUS doesn't make what he has to say any more meritorious; however, his being so can make his statements ominous, depending on what he says.

Evolution is a theory...not a good one but nonetheless...a theory. It's not a fact because the theory has many holes and a lot of missing fossils.

I wondered how long it'd take for someone to make that insipid remark. Now I know how long.

• "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words
  
• The Scientific Method: Hypothesis to Theory
  
• What Is a Scientific Theory?
• Overview of the Research Process

Ive been studying stratigraphy for 25 years. I have no proof that evolution is law.

OT:
Well, by all means, point me to your peer reviewed and published papers on the matter. I'm interested in seeing what your study of the topic has revealed and contributed to the body of knowledge on the matter. Surely you've not dedicated 25 years of your life to studying something and had nothing of merit and original to contribute to the field?

That aside, stratigraphy, the study of layered rocks and their temporal implications, doesn't purport to be or provide proof of the Theory of Evolution (ToE). With regard to the ToE, It's merely used as part of the means for dating things. Typically and in the context of the ToE, it's used to corroborate/supplement the dating of fossils and climatic/geologic events. Asserting/confirming that "such and such" a creature, event or plant occurred before or after a given point in time, or at a given point in time, in and of itself says noting one way or another about the veracity of the ToE. It's no surprise, then, that your study of stratigraphy has not led to proof of the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

The ToE obtains its soundness by dint of sound and rigorous research having confirmed the verity of myriad testable propositions (predictions/assertions) logically following from the ToE's core and implied assertions. That is how science validates assertions such as those made in the ToE.

Frankly, I don't even know why you mentioned stratigraphy, let alone whatever constitutes your "study" of it, in response to my post.

1. My post directly addresses the question in the title, not whether the ToE accurately describes how life came to be and how living creatures and plants have changed over time as a result of a host of natural influences.
2. How the hell anyone thinks the study of rocks, as contrasted with the study of lifeforms (current and former) found among them, would ever prove anything having to do with the evolution of lifeforms is beyond me. I can only hope you didn't undertake your stratigraphic studies with the expectation that it'd yield proof (or refutation, for that matter) of the ToE.
3. While I have nothing specific to say about your 25-year-long "study" of stratigraphy, I will say that nobody who's capable of and has been rigorously and credibly pursuing serious scientific study of any sort and for any period of time would remark of the ToE that "it's a theory not a fact." Anyone making such a remark tacitly testifies that they do not know what a scientific theory, as contrasted with the layman's meaning of the word "theory," is.
   
   Insofar as you made that statement and ostensibly have been "studying" stratigraphy for 25 years, it's clear you've got a lot more studying to do, one thing being developing a much better understanding of the scientific method and how scientific theories come about. In doing that, I suggest you commence with the four documents I linked in post 120. Absent that, I suggest you design, publish and obtain from the science community acceptance of a wholly new framework for scientific research and theory development and acceptance/confirmation.
4. In science, laws and theories are not the same things. So, of course, you have no proof that the ToE is law. It's not a law of science; it's a science theory. That distinction too would be lost on or conflated by any serious scientist or student of science.
   
   

Wrong. It is still a theory....not law.

Argument by (repeated) assertion.

• Bare assertion fallacy - Toolkit For Thinking
  
• Argument by assertion - RationalWiki

OT:
Congratulations! You've now posted enough thoroughly insipid replies to my posts that I've noticed your having done so; thus you've earned a place on my ignore list. I'm telling you that only so you know that I won't be aware of your future replies (if you make any) to my posts and you can set your own expectations accordingly. Ciao.

 

[jc456]

I wonder about that question, especially does Donald Trump think evolution is a fact ?

A few days ago I've read that article and I thought it has exaggerated opinions about Republicans but sometimes I agree with that. You can look that article here:

Republicans

Question, why are there still apes?

God saw that they were good.

Greg

I agree. And nothing to do with us.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis"

Haha, no it isn't. Empirical evidence is proof of a hypothesis .

And youbare asking for the most basic information regarding evolutionary theory. As in, the kind that is taught in middle school science class. So if you are sitting there waiting for this to be spoonfed to you, I suggest you get your best babyface on and go register for 7th grade. I am not your mommy and will not be spoonfeeding you this information.

I grew up that Darwin's theory was the facts to evolution. I merely stated that the word evolve means move on and away from, but we still have apes so I call bullshit.

Which shows you know less than nothing about evolution. And if you were honestly interested in learning, you would take some time to go read up on why what you just said is stupid.

dude i did read up and the question i have is based on the words being used. evolved. evolve means to move on transition, not stay the same. so either the ape evolved into a human or not. there are still apes, so I can't find a scenario there that fits your word usage.

No, you did not read up. Anyone who knows anything about this topic understands why your question is stupid. A rational adult would look around and realize that people from 7th grade science students on up to publishing biologists don't struggle with the issue that is leaving you scratching your head, and then ask himself, "What am I missing, to not understand this?" That rational person would first feel embarrassment for being more ignorant of the topoc than is a 12-year old, then would make an honest effort to educate himself.

But you are not a rational, honest person seeking knowledge. You are a superstitious denier.

then why can't you post up a link? I mean, shit it's that fking known.

I can not only post a link to a layman explanation, I can post links to mountains of publisged science. Your mistake is to think that, just because somebody will not be your mommy amd spoonfeed you basic knowledge you could easily find yourself, it means they cant. This is a lie you tell yourself in order to soothe yourself when you are feeling stupid.

 

[jc456]

I grew up that Darwin's theory was the facts to evolution. I merely stated that the word evolve means move on and away from, but we still have apes so I call bullshit.

Which shows you know less than nothing about evolution. And if you were honestly interested in learning, you would take some time to go read up on why what you just said is stupid.

dude i did read up and the question i have is based on the words being used. evolved. evolve means to move on transition, not stay the same. so either the ape evolved into a human or not. there are still apes, so I can't find a scenario there that fits your word usage.

No, you did not read up. Anyone who knows anything about this topic understands why your question is stupid. A rational adult would look around and realize that people from 7th grade science students on up to publishing biologists don't struggle with the issue that is leaving you scratching your head, and then ask himself, "What am I missing, to not understand this?" That rational person would first feel embarrassment for being more ignorant of the topoc than is a 12-year old, then would make an honest effort to educate himself.

But you are not a rational, honest person seeking knowledge. You are a superstitious denier.

then why can't you post up a link? I mean, shit it's that fking known.

I can not only post a link to a layman explanation, I can post links to mountains of publisged science. Your mistake is to think that, just because somebody will not be your mommy amd spoonfeed you basic knowledge you could easily find yourself, it means they cant. This is a lie you tell yourself in order to soothe yourself when you are feeling stupid.

then why can't you post up a link? I mean, shit it's that fking known.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course the Theory of Evolution is a fact; it's existential. It exists and anyone can read it and everything and all manners of things supporting/about it, and one can read it in all its vast detail or read a brief summary of it (though doing the latter hardly positions one to refute it). It doesn't matter whether one accepts it as an accurate depiction of how life evolved/evolves.

• Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life
  
• The Mathematics of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: 1859 and 150 Years Later
  
• Mathematical Theory of Evolution
  
• Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and Its Moral Purpose
  
• Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution (this is a summary)
  
• A brief guide to Darwin’s theory of natural selection (evolution)
  
• Brief Introduction to Evolutionary Theory
• A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Level
  
• Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants: the hologenome theory of evolution
  
• Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution
  
• Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences
  
• Hermann Joseph Muller's Study of X-rays as a Mutagen

To be sure, the Theory of Evolution as Darwin presented it has itself been refined since Darwin's day; thus merely reading On the Origin of Species isn't going to do the trick, as it were, for making one fully informed on the matter.

How Darwin envisioned evolution

The Integral Model of Evolution (the most recent refinement of the idea)

I wonder about that question, especially does Donald Trump think evolution is a fact ?

As for what Republicans think about the Theory of Evolution, well, I have no way to say credibly what they think. For all I know, they perceive it to be every bit as linear a thing as Darwin did. Hell, I don't know even whether most of them who'd refute it's validity have even read so much as the documents cited above, to say nothing of many or most of the myriad others that support (scientifically and with sound reasoning, not merely judgmentally) the Theory, so as to position themselves to be in legitimate mental state of comprehensive understanding about it to in turn refute it. Moreover, I don't know whether Republicans on the whole are fully aware of how the Scientific Method works.

As for what Trump thinks about the Theory of Evolution, well, I'll just say that as goes math and science (natural or social), the guy doesn't strike me as being anything even close to a prolific reader of rigorously developed content pertaining to those disciplines. But for his being POTUS, nobody would care what he thinks or might have to say about the Theory of Evolution. That he is POTUS doesn't make what he has to say any more meritorious; however, his being so can make his statements ominous, depending on what he says.

Evolution is a theory...not a good one but nonetheless...a theory. It's not a fact because the theory has many holes and a lot of missing fossils.

I wondered how long it'd take for someone to make that insipid remark. Now I know how long.

• "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words
  
• The Scientific Method: Hypothesis to Theory
  
• What Is a Scientific Theory?
• Overview of the Research Process

Ive been studying stratigraphy for 25 years. I have no proof that evolution is law.

OT:
Well, by all means, point me to your peer reviewed and published papers on the matter. I'm interested in seeing what your study of the topic has revealed and contributed to the body of knowledge on the matter. Surely you've not dedicated 25 years of your life to studying something and had nothing of merit and original to contribute to the field?

That aside, stratigraphy, the study of layered rocks and their temporal implications, doesn't purport to be or provide proof of the Theory of Evolution (ToE). With regard to the ToE, It's merely used as part of the means for dating things. Typically and in the context of the ToE, it's used to corroborate/supplement the dating of fossils and climatic/geologic events. Asserting/confirming that "such and such" a creature, event or plant occurred before or after a given point in time, or at a given point in time, in and of itself says noting one way or another about the veracity of the ToE. It's no surprise, then, that your study of stratigraphy has not led to proof of the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

The ToE obtains its soundness by dint of sound and rigorous research having confirmed the verity of myriad testable propositions (predictions/assertions) logically following from the ToE's core and implied assertions. That is how science validates assertions such as those made in the ToE.

Frankly, I don't even know why you mentioned stratigraphy, let alone whatever constitutes your "study" of it, in response to my post.

1. My post directly addresses the question in the title, not whether the ToE accurately describes how life came to be and how living creatures and plants have changed over time as a result of a host of natural influences.
2. How the hell anyone thinks the study of rocks, as contrasted with the study of lifeforms (current and former) found among them, would ever prove anything having to do with the evolution of lifeforms is beyond me. I can only hope you didn't undertake your stratigraphic studies with the expectation that it'd yield proof (or refutation, for that matter) of the ToE.
3. While I have nothing specific to say about your 25-year-long "study" of stratigraphy, I will say that nobody who's capable of and has been rigorously and credibly pursuing serious scientific study of any sort and for any period of time would remark of the ToE that "it's a theory not a fact." Anyone making such a remark tacitly testifies that they do not know what a scientific theory, as contrasted with the layman's meaning of the word "theory," is.
   
   Insofar as you made that statement and ostensibly have been "studying" stratigraphy for 25 years, it's clear you've got a lot more studying to do, one thing being developing a much better understanding of the scientific method and how scientific theories come about. In doing that, I suggest you commence with the four documents I linked in post 120. Absent that, I suggest you design, publish and obtain from the science community acceptance of a wholly new framework for scientific research and theory development and acceptance/confirmation.
4. In science, laws and theories are not the same things. So, of course, you have no proof that the ToE is law. It's not a law of science; it's a science theory. That distinction too would be lost on or conflated by any serious scientist or student of science.
   
   

Wrong. It is still a theory....not law.

"It is still a theory....not law"

You, sir, are a fraud. A blatant, shameless liar. Nobody with even a shred of background in any scientific field would say something so stupid...something that betrays such a complete and fundamental ignorance of what the terms "scientific law" and "scientific theory" mean.... Something no scientist would ever say....something that would get you laughed out of any freshman science class, much less serious company...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which shows you know less than nothing about evolution. And if you were honestly interested in learning, you would take some time to go read up on why what you just said is stupid.

dude i did read up and the question i have is based on the words being used. evolved. evolve means to move on transition, not stay the same. so either the ape evolved into a human or not. there are still apes, so I can't find a scenario there that fits your word usage.

No, you did not read up. Anyone who knows anything about this topic understands why your question is stupid. A rational adult would look around and realize that people from 7th grade science students on up to publishing biologists don't struggle with the issue that is leaving you scratching your head, and then ask himself, "What am I missing, to not understand this?" That rational person would first feel embarrassment for being more ignorant of the topoc than is a 12-year old, then would make an honest effort to educate himself.

But you are not a rational, honest person seeking knowledge. You are a superstitious denier.

then why can't you post up a link? I mean, shit it's that fking known.

I can not only post a link to a layman explanation, I can post links to mountains of publisged science. Your mistake is to think that, just because somebody will not be your mommy amd spoonfeed you basic knowledge you could easily find yourself, it means they cant. This is a lie you tell yourself in order to soothe yourself when you are feeling stupid.

then why can't you post up a link? I mean, shit it's that fking known.

I can. I just won't for you, because you are a dishonest little fock who wouldnt read it anyway.

 

[jc456]

dude i did read up and the question i have is based on the words being used. evolved. evolve means to move on transition, not stay the same. so either the ape evolved into a human or not. there are still apes, so I can't find a scenario there that fits your word usage.

No, you did not read up. Anyone who knows anything about this topic understands why your question is stupid. A rational adult would look around and realize that people from 7th grade science students on up to publishing biologists don't struggle with the issue that is leaving you scratching your head, and then ask himself, "What am I missing, to not understand this?" That rational person would first feel embarrassment for being more ignorant of the topoc than is a 12-year old, then would make an honest effort to educate himself.

But you are not a rational, honest person seeking knowledge. You are a superstitious denier.

then why can't you post up a link? I mean, shit it's that fking known.

I can not only post a link to a layman explanation, I can post links to mountains of publisged science. Your mistake is to think that, just because somebody will not be your mommy amd spoonfeed you basic knowledge you could easily find yourself, it means they cant. This is a lie you tell yourself in order to soothe yourself when you are feeling stupid.

then why can't you post up a link? I mean, shit it's that fking known.

I can. I just won't for you, because you are a dishonest little fock who wouldnt read it anyway.

but, then why can't you post up a link? I mean, shit it's that fking known.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, you did not read up. Anyone who knows anything about this topic understands why your question is stupid. A rational adult would look around and realize that people from 7th grade science students on up to publishing biologists don't struggle with the issue that is leaving you scratching your head, and then ask himself, "What am I missing, to not understand this?" That rational person would first feel embarrassment for being more ignorant of the topoc than is a 12-year old, then would make an honest effort to educate himself.

But you are not a rational, honest person seeking knowledge. You are a superstitious denier.

then why can't you post up a link? I mean, shit it's that fking known.

I can not only post a link to a layman explanation, I can post links to mountains of publisged science. Your mistake is to think that, just because somebody will not be your mommy amd spoonfeed you basic knowledge you could easily find yourself, it means they cant. This is a lie you tell yourself in order to soothe yourself when you are feeling stupid.

then why can't you post up a link? I mean, shit it's that fking known.

I can. I just won't for you, because you are a dishonest little fock who wouldnt read it anyway.

but, then why can't you post up a link? I mean, shit it's that fking known.

I can, like I said. Pay attention!

By the way...is this how you spend your time? Imagine if you spent a fourth of this time educating yourself. You would immediately see results, and not be such a moron.

 

[jc456]

then why can't you post up a link? I mean, shit it's that fking known.

I can not only post a link to a layman explanation, I can post links to mountains of publisged science. Your mistake is to think that, just because somebody will not be your mommy amd spoonfeed you basic knowledge you could easily find yourself, it means they cant. This is a lie you tell yourself in order to soothe yourself when you are feeling stupid.

then why can't you post up a link? I mean, shit it's that fking known.

I can. I just won't for you, because you are a dishonest little fock who wouldnt read it anyway.

but, then why can't you post up a link? I mean, shit it's that fking known.

I can, like I said. Pay attention!

By the way...is this how you spend your time? Imagine if you spent a fourth of this time educating yourself. You would immediately see results, and not be such a moron.

you can, yet you don't, leaves me with you really can't but you're projecting that you can. are you PeeWee Herman? ha ha meka leka high meka hiney ho

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Of course the Theory of Evolution is a fact; it's existential. It exists and anyone can read it and everything and all manners of things supporting/about it, and one can read it in all its vast detail or read a brief summary of it (though doing the latter hardly positions one to refute it). It doesn't matter whether one accepts it as an accurate depiction of how life evolved/evolves.

• Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life
  
• The Mathematics of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: 1859 and 150 Years Later
  
• Mathematical Theory of Evolution
  
• Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and Its Moral Purpose
  
• Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution (this is a summary)
  
• A brief guide to Darwin’s theory of natural selection (evolution)
  
• Brief Introduction to Evolutionary Theory
• A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Level
  
• Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants: the hologenome theory of evolution
  
• Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution
  
• Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences
  
• Hermann Joseph Muller's Study of X-rays as a Mutagen

To be sure, the Theory of Evolution as Darwin presented it has itself been refined since Darwin's day; thus merely reading On the Origin of Species isn't going to do the trick, as it were, for making one fully informed on the matter.

How Darwin envisioned evolution

The Integral Model of Evolution (the most recent refinement of the idea)

I wonder about that question, especially does Donald Trump think evolution is a fact ?

As for what Republicans think about the Theory of Evolution, well, I have no way to say credibly what they think. For all I know, they perceive it to be every bit as linear a thing as Darwin did. Hell, I don't know even whether most of them who'd refute it's validity have even read so much as the documents cited above, to say nothing of many or most of the myriad others that support (scientifically and with sound reasoning, not merely judgmentally) the Theory, so as to position themselves to be in legitimate mental state of comprehensive understanding about it to in turn refute it. Moreover, I don't know whether Republicans on the whole are fully aware of how the Scientific Method works.

As for what Trump thinks about the Theory of Evolution, well, I'll just say that as goes math and science (natural or social), the guy doesn't strike me as being anything even close to a prolific reader of rigorously developed content pertaining to those disciplines. But for his being POTUS, nobody would care what he thinks or might have to say about the Theory of Evolution. That he is POTUS doesn't make what he has to say any more meritorious; however, his being so can make his statements ominous, depending on what he says.

Evolution is a theory...not a good one but nonetheless...a theory. It's not a fact because the theory has many holes and a lot of missing fossils.

I wondered how long it'd take for someone to make that insipid remark. Now I know how long.

• "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words
  
• The Scientific Method: Hypothesis to Theory
  
• What Is a Scientific Theory?
• Overview of the Research Process

Ive been studying stratigraphy for 25 years. I have no proof that evolution is law.

OT:
Well, by all means, point me to your peer reviewed and published papers on the matter. I'm interested in seeing what your study of the topic has revealed and contributed to the body of knowledge on the matter. Surely you've not dedicated 25 years of your life to studying something and had nothing of merit and original to contribute to the field?

That aside, stratigraphy, the study of layered rocks and their temporal implications, doesn't purport to be or provide proof of the Theory of Evolution (ToE). With regard to the ToE, It's merely used as part of the means for dating things. Typically and in the context of the ToE, it's used to corroborate/supplement the dating of fossils and climatic/geologic events. Asserting/confirming that "such and such" a creature, event or plant occurred before or after a given point in time, or at a given point in time, in and of itself says noting one way or another about the veracity of the ToE. It's no surprise, then, that your study of stratigraphy has not led to proof of the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

The ToE obtains its soundness by dint of sound and rigorous research having confirmed the verity of myriad testable propositions (predictions/assertions) logically following from the ToE's core and implied assertions. That is how science validates assertions such as those made in the ToE.

Frankly, I don't even know why you mentioned stratigraphy, let alone whatever constitutes your "study" of it, in response to my post.

1. My post directly addresses the question in the title, not whether the ToE accurately describes how life came to be and how living creatures and plants have changed over time as a result of a host of natural influences.
2. How the hell anyone thinks the study of rocks, as contrasted with the study of lifeforms (current and former) found among them, would ever prove anything having to do with the evolution of lifeforms is beyond me. I can only hope you didn't undertake your stratigraphic studies with the expectation that it'd yield proof (or refutation, for that matter) of the ToE.
3. While I have nothing specific to say about your 25-year-long "study" of stratigraphy, I will say that nobody who's capable of and has been rigorously and credibly pursuing serious scientific study of any sort and for any period of time would remark of the ToE that "it's a theory not a fact." Anyone making such a remark tacitly testifies that they do not know what a scientific theory, as contrasted with the layman's meaning of the word "theory," is.
   
   Insofar as you made that statement and ostensibly have been "studying" stratigraphy for 25 years, it's clear you've got a lot more studying to do, one thing being developing a much better understanding of the scientific method and how scientific theories come about. In doing that, I suggest you commence with the four documents I linked in post 120. Absent that, I suggest you design, publish and obtain from the science community acceptance of a wholly new framework for scientific research and theory development and acceptance/confirmation.
4. In science, laws and theories are not the same things. So, of course, you have no proof that the ToE is law. It's not a law of science; it's a science theory. That distinction too would be lost on or conflated by any serious scientist or student of science.
   
   

Wrong. It is still a theory....not law.

"It is still a theory....not law"

You, sir, are a fraud. A blatant, shameless liar. Nobody with even a shred of background in any scientific field would say something so stupid...something that betrays such a complete and fundamental ignorance of what the terms "scientific law" and "scientific theory" mean.... Something no scientist would ever say....something that would get you laughed out of any freshman science class, much less serious company...

You're as delusional as your other counterpart. Perhaps you should actually study seismic, stratigraphy, and paleo. Regurgitating simple theoretical axioms out of a textbook based on prior discoveries that are filled with more questions than answers is a real laugher. You have no idea of what you are even talking about.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course the Theory of Evolution is a fact; it's existential. It exists and anyone can read it and everything and all manners of things supporting/about it, and one can read it in all its vast detail or read a brief summary of it (though doing the latter hardly positions one to refute it). It doesn't matter whether one accepts it as an accurate depiction of how life evolved/evolves.

• Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life
  
• The Mathematics of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: 1859 and 150 Years Later
  
• Mathematical Theory of Evolution
  
• Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and Its Moral Purpose
  
• Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution (this is a summary)
  
• A brief guide to Darwin’s theory of natural selection (evolution)
  
• Brief Introduction to Evolutionary Theory
• A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Level
  
• Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants: the hologenome theory of evolution
  
• Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution
  
• Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences
  
• Hermann Joseph Muller's Study of X-rays as a Mutagen

To be sure, the Theory of Evolution as Darwin presented it has itself been refined since Darwin's day; thus merely reading On the Origin of Species isn't going to do the trick, as it were, for making one fully informed on the matter.

How Darwin envisioned evolution

The Integral Model of Evolution (the most recent refinement of the idea)

As for what Republicans think about the Theory of Evolution, well, I have no way to say credibly what they think. For all I know, they perceive it to be every bit as linear a thing as Darwin did. Hell, I don't know even whether most of them who'd refute it's validity have even read so much as the documents cited above, to say nothing of many or most of the myriad others that support (scientifically and with sound reasoning, not merely judgmentally) the Theory, so as to position themselves to be in legitimate mental state of comprehensive understanding about it to in turn refute it. Moreover, I don't know whether Republicans on the whole are fully aware of how the Scientific Method works.

As for what Trump thinks about the Theory of Evolution, well, I'll just say that as goes math and science (natural or social), the guy doesn't strike me as being anything even close to a prolific reader of rigorously developed content pertaining to those disciplines. But for his being POTUS, nobody would care what he thinks or might have to say about the Theory of Evolution. That he is POTUS doesn't make what he has to say any more meritorious; however, his being so can make his statements ominous, depending on what he says.

Evolution is a theory...not a good one but nonetheless...a theory. It's not a fact because the theory has many holes and a lot of missing fossils.

I wondered how long it'd take for someone to make that insipid remark. Now I know how long.

• "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words
  
• The Scientific Method: Hypothesis to Theory
  
• What Is a Scientific Theory?
• Overview of the Research Process

Ive been studying stratigraphy for 25 years. I have no proof that evolution is law.

OT:
Well, by all means, point me to your peer reviewed and published papers on the matter. I'm interested in seeing what your study of the topic has revealed and contributed to the body of knowledge on the matter. Surely you've not dedicated 25 years of your life to studying something and had nothing of merit and original to contribute to the field?

That aside, stratigraphy, the study of layered rocks and their temporal implications, doesn't purport to be or provide proof of the Theory of Evolution (ToE). With regard to the ToE, It's merely used as part of the means for dating things. Typically and in the context of the ToE, it's used to corroborate/supplement the dating of fossils and climatic/geologic events. Asserting/confirming that "such and such" a creature, event or plant occurred before or after a given point in time, or at a given point in time, in and of itself says noting one way or another about the veracity of the ToE. It's no surprise, then, that your study of stratigraphy has not led to proof of the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

The ToE obtains its soundness by dint of sound and rigorous research having confirmed the verity of myriad testable propositions (predictions/assertions) logically following from the ToE's core and implied assertions. That is how science validates assertions such as those made in the ToE.

Frankly, I don't even know why you mentioned stratigraphy, let alone whatever constitutes your "study" of it, in response to my post.

1. My post directly addresses the question in the title, not whether the ToE accurately describes how life came to be and how living creatures and plants have changed over time as a result of a host of natural influences.
2. How the hell anyone thinks the study of rocks, as contrasted with the study of lifeforms (current and former) found among them, would ever prove anything having to do with the evolution of lifeforms is beyond me. I can only hope you didn't undertake your stratigraphic studies with the expectation that it'd yield proof (or refutation, for that matter) of the ToE.
3. While I have nothing specific to say about your 25-year-long "study" of stratigraphy, I will say that nobody who's capable of and has been rigorously and credibly pursuing serious scientific study of any sort and for any period of time would remark of the ToE that "it's a theory not a fact." Anyone making such a remark tacitly testifies that they do not know what a scientific theory, as contrasted with the layman's meaning of the word "theory," is.
   
   Insofar as you made that statement and ostensibly have been "studying" stratigraphy for 25 years, it's clear you've got a lot more studying to do, one thing being developing a much better understanding of the scientific method and how scientific theories come about. In doing that, I suggest you commence with the four documents I linked in post 120. Absent that, I suggest you design, publish and obtain from the science community acceptance of a wholly new framework for scientific research and theory development and acceptance/confirmation.
4. In science, laws and theories are not the same things. So, of course, you have no proof that the ToE is law. It's not a law of science; it's a science theory. That distinction too would be lost on or conflated by any serious scientist or student of science.
   
   

Wrong. It is still a theory....not law.

"It is still a theory....not law"

You, sir, are a fraud. A blatant, shameless liar. Nobody with even a shred of background in any scientific field would say something so stupid...something that betrays such a complete and fundamental ignorance of what the terms "scientific law" and "scientific theory" mean.... Something no scientist would ever say....something that would get you laughed out of any freshman science class, much less serious company...

You're as delusional as your other counterpart. Perhaps you should actually study seismic, stratigraphy, and paleo. Regurgitating simple theoretical axioms out of a textbook based on prior discoveries that are filled with more questions than answers is a real laugher. You have no idea of what you are even talking about.

You're a fraud. Nobody with any real science background would have said something so stupid amd wrong. Go peddle your fake internet character somewhere else.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Of course the Theory of Evolution is a fact; it's existential. It exists and anyone can read it and everything and all manners of things supporting/about it, and one can read it in all its vast detail or read a brief summary of it (though doing the latter hardly positions one to refute it). It doesn't matter whether one accepts it as an accurate depiction of how life evolved/evolves.

• Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life
  
• The Mathematics of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: 1859 and 150 Years Later
  
• Mathematical Theory of Evolution
  
• Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and Its Moral Purpose
  
• Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution (this is a summary)
  
• A brief guide to Darwin’s theory of natural selection (evolution)
  
• Brief Introduction to Evolutionary Theory
• A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Level
  
• Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants: the hologenome theory of evolution
  
• Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution
  
• Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences
  
• Hermann Joseph Muller's Study of X-rays as a Mutagen

To be sure, the Theory of Evolution as Darwin presented it has itself been refined since Darwin's day; thus merely reading On the Origin of Species isn't going to do the trick, as it were, for making one fully informed on the matter.

How Darwin envisioned evolution

The Integral Model of Evolution (the most recent refinement of the idea)

As for what Republicans think about the Theory of Evolution, well, I have no way to say credibly what they think. For all I know, they perceive it to be every bit as linear a thing as Darwin did. Hell, I don't know even whether most of them who'd refute it's validity have even read so much as the documents cited above, to say nothing of many or most of the myriad others that support (scientifically and with sound reasoning, not merely judgmentally) the Theory, so as to position themselves to be in legitimate mental state of comprehensive understanding about it to in turn refute it. Moreover, I don't know whether Republicans on the whole are fully aware of how the Scientific Method works.

As for what Trump thinks about the Theory of Evolution, well, I'll just say that as goes math and science (natural or social), the guy doesn't strike me as being anything even close to a prolific reader of rigorously developed content pertaining to those disciplines. But for his being POTUS, nobody would care what he thinks or might have to say about the Theory of Evolution. That he is POTUS doesn't make what he has to say any more meritorious; however, his being so can make his statements ominous, depending on what he says.

Evolution is a theory...not a good one but nonetheless...a theory. It's not a fact because the theory has many holes and a lot of missing fossils.

I wondered how long it'd take for someone to make that insipid remark. Now I know how long.

• "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words
  
• The Scientific Method: Hypothesis to Theory
  
• What Is a Scientific Theory?
• Overview of the Research Process

Ive been studying stratigraphy for 25 years. I have no proof that evolution is law.

OT:
Well, by all means, point me to your peer reviewed and published papers on the matter. I'm interested in seeing what your study of the topic has revealed and contributed to the body of knowledge on the matter. Surely you've not dedicated 25 years of your life to studying something and had nothing of merit and original to contribute to the field?

That aside, stratigraphy, the study of layered rocks and their temporal implications, doesn't purport to be or provide proof of the Theory of Evolution (ToE). With regard to the ToE, It's merely used as part of the means for dating things. Typically and in the context of the ToE, it's used to corroborate/supplement the dating of fossils and climatic/geologic events. Asserting/confirming that "such and such" a creature, event or plant occurred before or after a given point in time, or at a given point in time, in and of itself says noting one way or another about the veracity of the ToE. It's no surprise, then, that your study of stratigraphy has not led to proof of the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

The ToE obtains its soundness by dint of sound and rigorous research having confirmed the verity of myriad testable propositions (predictions/assertions) logically following from the ToE's core and implied assertions. That is how science validates assertions such as those made in the ToE.

Frankly, I don't even know why you mentioned stratigraphy, let alone whatever constitutes your "study" of it, in response to my post.

1. My post directly addresses the question in the title, not whether the ToE accurately describes how life came to be and how living creatures and plants have changed over time as a result of a host of natural influences.
2. How the hell anyone thinks the study of rocks, as contrasted with the study of lifeforms (current and former) found among them, would ever prove anything having to do with the evolution of lifeforms is beyond me. I can only hope you didn't undertake your stratigraphic studies with the expectation that it'd yield proof (or refutation, for that matter) of the ToE.
3. While I have nothing specific to say about your 25-year-long "study" of stratigraphy, I will say that nobody who's capable of and has been rigorously and credibly pursuing serious scientific study of any sort and for any period of time would remark of the ToE that "it's a theory not a fact." Anyone making such a remark tacitly testifies that they do not know what a scientific theory, as contrasted with the layman's meaning of the word "theory," is.
   
   Insofar as you made that statement and ostensibly have been "studying" stratigraphy for 25 years, it's clear you've got a lot more studying to do, one thing being developing a much better understanding of the scientific method and how scientific theories come about. In doing that, I suggest you commence with the four documents I linked in post 120. Absent that, I suggest you design, publish and obtain from the science community acceptance of a wholly new framework for scientific research and theory development and acceptance/confirmation.
4. In science, laws and theories are not the same things. So, of course, you have no proof that the ToE is law. It's not a law of science; it's a science theory. That distinction too would be lost on or conflated by any serious scientist or student of science.
   
   

Wrong. It is still a theory....not law.

"It is still a theory....not law"

You, sir, are a fraud. A blatant, shameless liar. Nobody with even a shred of background in any scientific field would say something so stupid...something that betrays such a complete and fundamental ignorance of what the terms "scientific law" and "scientific theory" mean.... Something no scientist would ever say....something that would get you laughed out of any freshman science class, much less serious company...

You're as delusional as your other counterpart. Perhaps you should actually study seismic, stratigraphy, and paleo. Regurgitating simple theoretical axioms out of a textbook based on prior discoveries that are filled with more questions than answers is a real laugher. You have no idea of what you are even talking about.

Perhaps you should actually study seismic, stratigraphy, and paleo.

I have and all scream evolution

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I wondered how long it'd take for someone to make that insipid remark. Now I know how long.

• "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words
  
• The Scientific Method: Hypothesis to Theory
  
• What Is a Scientific Theory?
• Overview of the Research Process

Ive been studying stratigraphy for 25 years. I have no proof that evolution is law.

OT:
Well, by all means, point me to your peer reviewed and published papers on the matter. I'm interested in seeing what your study of the topic has revealed and contributed to the body of knowledge on the matter. Surely you've not dedicated 25 years of your life to studying something and had nothing of merit and original to contribute to the field?

That aside, stratigraphy, the study of layered rocks and their temporal implications, doesn't purport to be or provide proof of the Theory of Evolution (ToE). With regard to the ToE, It's merely used as part of the means for dating things. Typically and in the context of the ToE, it's used to corroborate/supplement the dating of fossils and climatic/geologic events. Asserting/confirming that "such and such" a creature, event or plant occurred before or after a given point in time, or at a given point in time, in and of itself says noting one way or another about the veracity of the ToE. It's no surprise, then, that your study of stratigraphy has not led to proof of the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

The ToE obtains its soundness by dint of sound and rigorous research having confirmed the verity of myriad testable propositions (predictions/assertions) logically following from the ToE's core and implied assertions. That is how science validates assertions such as those made in the ToE.

Frankly, I don't even know why you mentioned stratigraphy, let alone whatever constitutes your "study" of it, in response to my post.

1. My post directly addresses the question in the title, not whether the ToE accurately describes how life came to be and how living creatures and plants have changed over time as a result of a host of natural influences.
2. How the hell anyone thinks the study of rocks, as contrasted with the study of lifeforms (current and former) found among them, would ever prove anything having to do with the evolution of lifeforms is beyond me. I can only hope you didn't undertake your stratigraphic studies with the expectation that it'd yield proof (or refutation, for that matter) of the ToE.
3. While I have nothing specific to say about your 25-year-long "study" of stratigraphy, I will say that nobody who's capable of and has been rigorously and credibly pursuing serious scientific study of any sort and for any period of time would remark of the ToE that "it's a theory not a fact." Anyone making such a remark tacitly testifies that they do not know what a scientific theory, as contrasted with the layman's meaning of the word "theory," is.
   
   Insofar as you made that statement and ostensibly have been "studying" stratigraphy for 25 years, it's clear you've got a lot more studying to do, one thing being developing a much better understanding of the scientific method and how scientific theories come about. In doing that, I suggest you commence with the four documents I linked in post 120. Absent that, I suggest you design, publish and obtain from the science community acceptance of a wholly new framework for scientific research and theory development and acceptance/confirmation.
4. In science, laws and theories are not the same things. So, of course, you have no proof that the ToE is law. It's not a law of science; it's a science theory. That distinction too would be lost on or conflated by any serious scientist or student of science.
   
   

Wrong. It is still a theory....not law.

"It is still a theory....not law"

You, sir, are a fraud. A blatant, shameless liar. Nobody with even a shred of background in any scientific field would say something so stupid...something that betrays such a complete and fundamental ignorance of what the terms "scientific law" and "scientific theory" mean.... Something no scientist would ever say....something that would get you laughed out of any freshman science class, much less serious company...

You're as delusional as your other counterpart. Perhaps you should actually study seismic, stratigraphy, and paleo. Regurgitating simple theoretical axioms out of a textbook based on prior discoveries that are filled with more questions than answers is a real laugher. You have no idea of what you are even talking about.

Perhaps you should actually study seismic, stratigraphy, and paleo.

I have and all scream evolution

Obviously not. Im not trying to disprove evolution. I haven't seen sufficient evidence through studies that warrant it as factual.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

OT:
Well, by all means, point me to your peer reviewed and published papers on the matter. I'm interested in seeing what your study of the topic has revealed and contributed to the body of knowledge on the matter. Surely you've not dedicated 25 years of your life to studying something and had nothing of merit and original to contribute to the field?

That aside, stratigraphy, the study of layered rocks and their temporal implications, doesn't purport to be or provide proof of the Theory of Evolution (ToE). With regard to the ToE, It's merely used as part of the means for dating things. Typically and in the context of the ToE, it's used to corroborate/supplement the dating of fossils and climatic/geologic events. Asserting/confirming that "such and such" a creature, event or plant occurred before or after a given point in time, or at a given point in time, in and of itself says noting one way or another about the veracity of the ToE. It's no surprise, then, that your study of stratigraphy has not led to proof of the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

The ToE obtains its soundness by dint of sound and rigorous research having confirmed the verity of myriad testable propositions (predictions/assertions) logically following from the ToE's core and implied assertions. That is how science validates assertions such as those made in the ToE.

Frankly, I don't even know why you mentioned stratigraphy, let alone whatever constitutes your "study" of it, in response to my post.

1. My post directly addresses the question in the title, not whether the ToE accurately describes how life came to be and how living creatures and plants have changed over time as a result of a host of natural influences.
2. How the hell anyone thinks the study of rocks, as contrasted with the study of lifeforms (current and former) found among them, would ever prove anything having to do with the evolution of lifeforms is beyond me. I can only hope you didn't undertake your stratigraphic studies with the expectation that it'd yield proof (or refutation, for that matter) of the ToE.
3. While I have nothing specific to say about your 25-year-long "study" of stratigraphy, I will say that nobody who's capable of and has been rigorously and credibly pursuing serious scientific study of any sort and for any period of time would remark of the ToE that "it's a theory not a fact." Anyone making such a remark tacitly testifies that they do not know what a scientific theory, as contrasted with the layman's meaning of the word "theory," is.
   
   Insofar as you made that statement and ostensibly have been "studying" stratigraphy for 25 years, it's clear you've got a lot more studying to do, one thing being developing a much better understanding of the scientific method and how scientific theories come about. In doing that, I suggest you commence with the four documents I linked in post 120. Absent that, I suggest you design, publish and obtain from the science community acceptance of a wholly new framework for scientific research and theory development and acceptance/confirmation.
4. In science, laws and theories are not the same things. So, of course, you have no proof that the ToE is law. It's not a law of science; it's a science theory. That distinction too would be lost on or conflated by any serious scientist or student of science.
   
   

Wrong. It is still a theory....not law.

"It is still a theory....not law"

You, sir, are a fraud. A blatant, shameless liar. Nobody with even a shred of background in any scientific field would say something so stupid...something that betrays such a complete and fundamental ignorance of what the terms "scientific law" and "scientific theory" mean.... Something no scientist would ever say....something that would get you laughed out of any freshman science class, much less serious company...

You're as delusional as your other counterpart. Perhaps you should actually study seismic, stratigraphy, and paleo. Regurgitating simple theoretical axioms out of a textbook based on prior discoveries that are filled with more questions than answers is a real laugher. You have no idea of what you are even talking about.

Perhaps you should actually study seismic, stratigraphy, and paleo.

I have and all scream evolution

Obviously not. Im not trying to disprove evolution. I haven't seen sufficient evidence through studies that warrant it as factual.

Fascinating. Have you raised your concerns to the global scientific community? They seem to have seen more than enough evidence.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Wrong. It is still a theory....not law.

"It is still a theory....not law"

You, sir, are a fraud. A blatant, shameless liar. Nobody with even a shred of background in any scientific field would say something so stupid...something that betrays such a complete and fundamental ignorance of what the terms "scientific law" and "scientific theory" mean.... Something no scientist would ever say....something that would get you laughed out of any freshman science class, much less serious company...

You're as delusional as your other counterpart. Perhaps you should actually study seismic, stratigraphy, and paleo. Regurgitating simple theoretical axioms out of a textbook based on prior discoveries that are filled with more questions than answers is a real laugher. You have no idea of what you are even talking about.

Perhaps you should actually study seismic, stratigraphy, and paleo.

I have and all scream evolution

Obviously not. Im not trying to disprove evolution. I haven't seen sufficient evidence through studies that warrant it as factual.

Fascinating. Have you raised your concerns to the global scientific community? They seem to have seen more than enough evidence.

So now you're into consensus and you call that science. Now that's fascinating. Unfortunately, that's not science. What is factual is that the earth has been warming and cooling for millenia. That is not in question.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"It is still a theory....not law"

You, sir, are a fraud. A blatant, shameless liar. Nobody with even a shred of background in any scientific field would say something so stupid...something that betrays such a complete and fundamental ignorance of what the terms "scientific law" and "scientific theory" mean.... Something no scientist would ever say....something that would get you laughed out of any freshman science class, much less serious company...

You're as delusional as your other counterpart. Perhaps you should actually study seismic, stratigraphy, and paleo. Regurgitating simple theoretical axioms out of a textbook based on prior discoveries that are filled with more questions than answers is a real laugher. You have no idea of what you are even talking about.

Perhaps you should actually study seismic, stratigraphy, and paleo.

I have and all scream evolution

Obviously not. Im not trying to disprove evolution. I haven't seen sufficient evidence through studies that warrant it as factual.

Fascinating. Have you raised your concerns to the global scientific community? They seem to have seen more than enough evidence.

So now you're into consensus and you call that science. Now that's fascinating. Unfortunately, that's not science. What is factual is that the earth has been warming and cooling for millenia. That is not in question.

I did not call a consensus, "science". Shameless lie by you. In fact, invited you to challenge the consensus on scientific grounds. Which you will not do, as you know less than nothing about this topic and would be laughed out of any serious discussion about it.

And what a surprise, the evolution denier also denies accepted climate theories. Yes, I'm sure climate scientists will be so embarrassed when you tell them that the climate warms and cools.