Evolution....Now a "Fact"???

[Hollie]

Now, why would a proponent alter the commonly accepted meaning of words? Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.

Problem is....it is dishonest, and false.

And...those who do so should be judged to have lost the argument.




"Intellectually Honest and Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics

1. Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes, like leftists calling government spending “investment” Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics




Here, an example of the words in question:

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge ;a conjecture.

Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

I believe that these are the commonly accepted meanings of the two terms....
To my mind, these two terms are not synonymous


1. Although every reference I've seen referred to "the theory of evolution," the most popular writer on the subject, Stephen J. Gould, pushed it way over toward "proven."


Gould: " Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"....."
http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution as Fact and Theory Gould 1981.pdf




2. Wow. Our pal, Dr. Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, as well as atheistic Marxist, seems willing to bend definitions to his desire when it comes to either religion or evolution.

a.fact: ' something that actually exists; reality; truth:

'Your fears have no basis in fact.'

something known to exist or to have happened
Fact Define Fact at Dictionary.com

b. something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence; a true piece of information
Fact - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But, shouldn't we wait for proof before we award the idea with the term 'fact'?
Especially in science.




3." Something demonstrated to exist ...."
And on that basis, of course, evolution is not a fact.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



But let's cut Gould some slack...after all, it's only been a century and a half, with more scientists working today than all previous scientists who ever lived, combined....


Proof of Darwin's view will be found any day now.....any day....

Who's surprised. Yet another thread of phony, edited and parsed "quote" that the religious cuts send pastes from creation ministries.

As is typical with PC, she cuts and pastes phony "quotes" without having the intellectual honestly or integrity to verify their accuracy. In every single one of these threads she has opened, I've pointed her lies and fraud.

The Dean Kenyon "quote" is another of the edited, parsed and phony "quotes" she has dumped into a thread and which has previously been shown to be a fraud.

The poor dear must enjoy being shown to be a fraud and a liar as that has been the case with every one these pointless threads.

Here's the actual data:

Edwards v. Aguillard Dean Kenyon s Affidavit

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. Now...back to that 'evolution is a fact' thing.


In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education had an insert placed in biology textbooks:


a. "This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact.....

"The word "evolution" may refer to many types of change. Evolution describes changes that occur within a species. (White moths, for example, may "evolve" into gray moths.) This process is microevolution, which can be observed and described as fact.

Evolution may also refer to the change of one living thing to another, such as reptiles into birds. This process, called macroevolution, has never been observed and should be considered a theory. Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things."
The Alabama Insert - A Call for Impartial Science Anderson Norris


Before some of you folks have a conniption, you can read this at the site as well:


b. " As one who was involved with promoting the Alabama Insert I can honestly say that I am unaware of any attempt to use the Insert to bring creationism into the classroom.
On the contrary, the reasons for supporting the Insert were to keep religious indoctrination out of the science classroom, whether it be theistic or anti-theistic, and to promote full disclosure of both the strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories."




6. Can you have any disagreement with the statements above?
They simply ask for an open mind, based on the 'fact' that proof of Darwin's hypothesis remains....evasive.
I feel that the above disclaimer is far more honest than folks like:

. Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist, and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc: ““If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.”
EBSCOhost

“Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to ‘defend evolution,’ please decline...you probably will get beaten.”
Scott, Eugenie C., "Monkey Business," The Sciences (January/February 1996), pp. 20-25.


Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question.

This advice from the head of the National Center for Science Education, Inc..."organization whose stated mission is to educate the press and the public on the scientific and educational aspects of controversies surrounding the teaching of evolution and climate change, and to provide information and resources to schools, parents, and other citizens working to keep those topics in public school science education."
National Center for Science Education - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



This sound like either 'science' or 'education' to you???

Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better just shut up.
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter eight.

 

[orogenicman]

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."

Horseshit creationist books don't get you much, sister.

Proving that you are a stream of sewage has become so simple that it almost isn't fun anymore.

Almost.

But by leaving out the attribution, the source of the quote, you are outright admitting that you are lying.

It was
"The Great Evolution Mystery"
by Gordon Rattray Taylor


Everything I post in science, is based on science.

You bring up religion, or creationism....to hide the fact that you know even less in this area than you do in history.


These are quotes from reviews of Taylor's book, found at Amazon:

"... written from the perspective of a firm believer in naturalistic evolution, is about that question we all ask at times: "Now come on, could natural selection really have done this or that particular thing?" Mr. Rattray Taylor thinks not, in most cases. He believes that the natural selection of Darwinism and "neo-Darwinism" accounts for variations within species but probably little else.

Rattray Taylor considers it beyond belief that the kind of coordinated mutations which would seem to be necessary for most major evolutionary developments could have arisen randomly in such "short" time periods as they seem to have required.

....this is about as fine a critique of Darwinism as one is likely to ever find: It is scientific, un-polemic, well-argued, offers counter-hypotheses....

He explores several facets of evolution that make a mockery of natural selection and of the neo-Darwinist insistence on steady, gradual change.
Taylor, a Briton, is not bound by the political considerations that strangle evolutionary thought in America.

Mr. Taylor has developed a good argument for the need for a broader view of evolution."


Exactly my perspective.

And,you have been exposed as a fool, again.

A lying fool.



And tomorrow, I'm gonna beat you up in History forum, too.

Taylor was a Lamarkian. That alone earns him 8 points on the 12 point nutter scale.

 

[Hollie]

Now, why would a proponent alter the commonly accepted meaning of words? Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.

Problem is....it is dishonest, and false.

And...those who do so should be judged to have lost the argument.




"Intellectually Honest and Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics

1. Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes, like leftists calling government spending “investment” Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics




Here, an example of the words in question:

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge ;a conjecture.

Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

I believe that these are the commonly accepted meanings of the two terms....
To my mind, these two terms are not synonymous


1. Although every reference I've seen referred to "the theory of evolution," the most popular writer on the subject, Stephen J. Gould, pushed it way over toward "proven."


Gould: " Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"....."
http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution as Fact and Theory Gould 1981.pdf




2. Wow. Our pal, Dr. Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, as well as atheistic Marxist, seems willing to bend definitions to his desire when it comes to either religion or evolution.

a.fact: ' something that actually exists; reality; truth:

'Your fears have no basis in fact.'

something known to exist or to have happened
Fact Define Fact at Dictionary.com

b. something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence; a true piece of information
Fact - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But, shouldn't we wait for proof before we award the idea with the term 'fact'?
Especially in science.




3." Something demonstrated to exist ...."
And on that basis, of course, evolution is not a fact.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



But let's cut Gould some slack...after all, it's only been a century and a half, with more scientists working today than all previous scientists who ever lived, combined....


Proof of Darwin's view will be found any day now.....any day....

You ID'iot / Young Earth Creationists are a hoot.

Your entire world revolves around silly conspiracy theories.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, why would a proponent alter the commonly accepted meaning of words? Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.

Problem is....it is dishonest, and false.

And...those who do so should be judged to have lost the argument.




"Intellectually Honest and Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics

1. Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes, like leftists calling government spending “investment” Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics




Here, an example of the words in question:

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge ;a conjecture.

Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

I believe that these are the commonly accepted meanings of the two terms....
To my mind, these two terms are not synonymous


1. Although every reference I've seen referred to "the theory of evolution," the most popular writer on the subject, Stephen J. Gould, pushed it way over toward "proven."


Gould: " Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"....."
http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution as Fact and Theory Gould 1981.pdf




2. Wow. Our pal, Dr. Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, as well as atheistic Marxist, seems willing to bend definitions to his desire when it comes to either religion or evolution.

a.fact: ' something that actually exists; reality; truth:

'Your fears have no basis in fact.'

something known to exist or to have happened
Fact Define Fact at Dictionary.com

b. something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence; a true piece of information
Fact - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But, shouldn't we wait for proof before we award the idea with the term 'fact'?
Especially in science.




3." Something demonstrated to exist ...."
And on that basis, of course, evolution is not a fact.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



But let's cut Gould some slack...after all, it's only been a century and a half, with more scientists working today than all previous scientists who ever lived, combined....


Proof of Darwin's view will be found any day now.....any day....

Who's surprised. Yet another thread of phony, edited and parsed "quote" that the religious cuts send pastes from creation ministries.

As is typical with PC, she cuts and pastes phony "quotes" without having the intellectual honestly or integrity to verify their accuracy. In every single one of these threads she has opened, I've pointed her lies and fraud.

The Dean Kenyon "quote" is another of the edited, parsed and phony "quotes" she has dumped into a thread and which has previously been shown to be a fraud.

The poor dear must enjoy being shown to be a fraud and a liar as that has been the case with every one these pointless threads.

Here's the actual data:

Edwards v. Aguillard Dean Kenyon s Affidavit

Now, what Sunday would be complete without an attempt to lie from Hollie?

Kenyon said exactly what I said he said.

Here it is from the very link you provided:

"What we do know appears to be more consistent with the view that genomes can only vary within limits corresponding roughly to the level of genera or families, but possibly narrower depending upon the genome (species) in question. And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field. All such attempts have ultimately proven fruitless, although in the case of fruit flies some degree of reproductive isolation of laboratory subpopulations has been achieved (Thoday and Gibson 1962). The field studies reported in the evolutionary journals involve microevolutionary change, about which there is no dispute. In any case, even though we may have strong doubts about macroevolution because of the conclusions we have drawn concerning the origin of life, the issue must be decided on the basis of additional evidence."

 

[Hollie]

5. Now...back to that 'evolution is a fact' thing.


In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education had an insert placed in biology textbooks:


a. "This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact.....

"The word "evolution" may refer to many types of change. Evolution describes changes that occur within a species. (White moths, for example, may "evolve" into gray moths.) This process is microevolution, which can be observed and described as fact.

Evolution may also refer to the change of one living thing to another, such as reptiles into birds. This process, called macroevolution, has never been observed and should be considered a theory. Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things."
The Alabama Insert - A Call for Impartial Science Anderson Norris


Before some of you folks have a conniption, you can read this at the site as well:


b. " As one who was involved with promoting the Alabama Insert I can honestly say that I am unaware of any attempt to use the Insert to bring creationism into the classroom.
On the contrary, the reasons for supporting the Insert were to keep religious indoctrination out of the science classroom, whether it be theistic or anti-theistic, and to promote full disclosure of both the strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories."




6. Can you have any disagreement with the statements above?
They simply ask for an open mind, based on the 'fact' that proof of Darwin's hypothesis remains....evasive.
I feel that the above disclaimer is far more honest than folks like:

. Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist, and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc: ““If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.”
EBSCOhost

“Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to ‘defend evolution,’ please decline...you probably will get beaten.”
Scott, Eugenie C., "Monkey Business," The Sciences (January/February 1996), pp. 20-25.


Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question.

This advice from the head of the National Center for Science Education, Inc..."organization whose stated mission is to educate the press and the public on the scientific and educational aspects of controversies surrounding the teaching of evolution and climate change, and to provide information and resources to schools, parents, and other citizens working to keep those topics in public school science education."
National Center for Science Education - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



This sound like either 'science' or 'education' to you???

Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better just shut up.
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion," chapter eight.

Ah, Berlinski!

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here(sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, why would a proponent alter the commonly accepted meaning of words? Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.

Problem is....it is dishonest, and false.

And...those who do so should be judged to have lost the argument.




"Intellectually Honest and Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics

1. Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes, like leftists calling government spending “investment” Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics




Here, an example of the words in question:

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge ;a conjecture.

Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

I believe that these are the commonly accepted meanings of the two terms....
To my mind, these two terms are not synonymous


1. Although every reference I've seen referred to "the theory of evolution," the most popular writer on the subject, Stephen J. Gould, pushed it way over toward "proven."


Gould: " Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"....."
http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution as Fact and Theory Gould 1981.pdf




2. Wow. Our pal, Dr. Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, as well as atheistic Marxist, seems willing to bend definitions to his desire when it comes to either religion or evolution.

a.fact: ' something that actually exists; reality; truth:

'Your fears have no basis in fact.'

something known to exist or to have happened
Fact Define Fact at Dictionary.com

b. something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence; a true piece of information
Fact - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But, shouldn't we wait for proof before we award the idea with the term 'fact'?
Especially in science.




3." Something demonstrated to exist ...."
And on that basis, of course, evolution is not a fact.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



But let's cut Gould some slack...after all, it's only been a century and a half, with more scientists working today than all previous scientists who ever lived, combined....


Proof of Darwin's view will be found any day now.....any day....

You ID'iot / Young Earth Creationists are a hoot.

Your entire world revolves around silly conspiracy theories.

I caught you in another lie, huh?

 

[Ravi]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

Yes, you'd think the PC types would put their energies into proving God exists instead of bad mouthing his creation.

 

[Hollie]

Now, why would a proponent alter the commonly accepted meaning of words? Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.

Problem is....it is dishonest, and false.

And...those who do so should be judged to have lost the argument.




"Intellectually Honest and Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics

1. Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes, like leftists calling government spending “investment” Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics




Here, an example of the words in question:

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge ;a conjecture.

Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

I believe that these are the commonly accepted meanings of the two terms....
To my mind, these two terms are not synonymous


1. Although every reference I've seen referred to "the theory of evolution," the most popular writer on the subject, Stephen J. Gould, pushed it way over toward "proven."


Gould: " Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"....."
http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution as Fact and Theory Gould 1981.pdf




2. Wow. Our pal, Dr. Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, as well as atheistic Marxist, seems willing to bend definitions to his desire when it comes to either religion or evolution.

a.fact: ' something that actually exists; reality; truth:

'Your fears have no basis in fact.'

something known to exist or to have happened
Fact Define Fact at Dictionary.com

b. something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence; a true piece of information
Fact - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But, shouldn't we wait for proof before we award the idea with the term 'fact'?
Especially in science.




3." Something demonstrated to exist ...."
And on that basis, of course, evolution is not a fact.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



But let's cut Gould some slack...after all, it's only been a century and a half, with more scientists working today than all previous scientists who ever lived, combined....


Proof of Darwin's view will be found any day now.....any day....

Who's surprised. Yet another thread of phony, edited and parsed "quote" that the religious cuts send pastes from creation ministries.

As is typical with PC, she cuts and pastes phony "quotes" without having the intellectual honestly or integrity to verify their accuracy. In every single one of these threads she has opened, I've pointed her lies and fraud.

The Dean Kenyon "quote" is another of the edited, parsed and phony "quotes" she has dumped into a thread and which has previously been shown to be a fraud.

The poor dear must enjoy being shown to be a fraud and a liar as that has been the case with every one these pointless threads.

Here's the actual data:

Edwards v. Aguillard Dean Kenyon s Affidavit

Now, what Sunday would be complete without an attempt to lie from Hollie?

Kenyon said exactly what I said he said.

Here it is from the very link you provided:

"What we do know appears to be more consistent with the view that genomes can only vary within limits corresponding roughly to the level of genera or families, but possibly narrower depending upon the genome (species) in question. And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field. All such attempts have ultimately proven fruitless, although in the case of fruit flies some degree of reproductive isolation of laboratory subpopulations has been achieved (Thoday and Gibson 1962). The field studies reported in the evolutionary journals involve microevolutionary change, about which there is no dispute. In any case, even though we may have strong doubts about macroevolution because of the conclusions we have drawn concerning the origin of life, the issue must be decided on the basis of additional evidence."

Now dear, shouldn't you be trolling over at Harun Yahya for your usual cut and paste nonsense?

 

[Hollie]

Now, why would a proponent alter the commonly accepted meaning of words? Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.

Problem is....it is dishonest, and false.

And...those who do so should be judged to have lost the argument.




"Intellectually Honest and Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics

1. Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes, like leftists calling government spending “investment” Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics




Here, an example of the words in question:

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge ;a conjecture.

Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

I believe that these are the commonly accepted meanings of the two terms....
To my mind, these two terms are not synonymous


1. Although every reference I've seen referred to "the theory of evolution," the most popular writer on the subject, Stephen J. Gould, pushed it way over toward "proven."


Gould: " Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"....."
http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution as Fact and Theory Gould 1981.pdf




2. Wow. Our pal, Dr. Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, as well as atheistic Marxist, seems willing to bend definitions to his desire when it comes to either religion or evolution.

a.fact: ' something that actually exists; reality; truth:

'Your fears have no basis in fact.'

something known to exist or to have happened
Fact Define Fact at Dictionary.com

b. something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence; a true piece of information
Fact - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But, shouldn't we wait for proof before we award the idea with the term 'fact'?
Especially in science.




3." Something demonstrated to exist ...."
And on that basis, of course, evolution is not a fact.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



But let's cut Gould some slack...after all, it's only been a century and a half, with more scientists working today than all previous scientists who ever lived, combined....


Proof of Darwin's view will be found any day now.....any day....

You ID'iot / Young Earth Creationists are a hoot.

Your entire world revolves around silly conspiracy theories.

I caught you in another lie, huh?

Sidestepping as usual. Your phony "quotes" are so easy to expose as fraud because you cut and paste the same lies repeatedly.

How many more times do you want to be exposed as a fraud and a liar?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

Yes, you'd think the PC types would put their energies into proving God exists instead of bad mouthing his creation.

This is the science forum.

Seems I'm the only one conversant with same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, why would a proponent alter the commonly accepted meaning of words? Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.

Problem is....it is dishonest, and false.

And...those who do so should be judged to have lost the argument.




"Intellectually Honest and Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics

1. Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes, like leftists calling government spending “investment” Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics




Here, an example of the words in question:

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge ;a conjecture.

Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

I believe that these are the commonly accepted meanings of the two terms....
To my mind, these two terms are not synonymous


1. Although every reference I've seen referred to "the theory of evolution," the most popular writer on the subject, Stephen J. Gould, pushed it way over toward "proven."


Gould: " Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"....."
http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution as Fact and Theory Gould 1981.pdf




2. Wow. Our pal, Dr. Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, as well as atheistic Marxist, seems willing to bend definitions to his desire when it comes to either religion or evolution.

a.fact: ' something that actually exists; reality; truth:

'Your fears have no basis in fact.'

something known to exist or to have happened
Fact Define Fact at Dictionary.com

b. something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence; a true piece of information
Fact - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But, shouldn't we wait for proof before we award the idea with the term 'fact'?
Especially in science.




3." Something demonstrated to exist ...."
And on that basis, of course, evolution is not a fact.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



But let's cut Gould some slack...after all, it's only been a century and a half, with more scientists working today than all previous scientists who ever lived, combined....


Proof of Darwin's view will be found any day now.....any day....

You ID'iot / Young Earth Creationists are a hoot.

Your entire world revolves around silly conspiracy theories.

I caught you in another lie, huh?

Sidestepping as usual. Your phony "quotes" are so easy to expose as fraud because you cut and paste the same lies repeatedly.

How many more times do you want to be exposed as a fraud and a liar?

It's your quote that you're running from....I took it wholly from the link you provided.


Smashed another custard pie in your face, huh?

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

Yes, you'd think the PC types would put their energies into proving God exists instead of bad mouthing his creation.

This is the science forum.

Seems I'm the only one conversant with same.

You're not conversant at all. You're a fraud who cuts and pastes edited, parsed and phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya and some of the most notoriously crank fundie zealots.

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Kenyon

Dean H. Kenyon is professor emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, and one of the grand old men of the modern form of creationism known as Intelligent Design. Kenyon is, for instance, the author of the infamous Of Pandas and People (with Percival Davis), the textbook that laid the foundation for the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (after being quickly turned from a creationist book into an Intelligent Design book, which was possible since the views are the same). And yes, there is a pattern here – Kenyon, as most proponents of ID, are concerned with getting creationism into schools, writing textbooks, popular books (especially for children), and participating in debates. The ID movement isn’t, and has never been, about doing science. It should be mentioned that Kenyon still subscribes to young earth creationism.

Kenyon first started promoting creationism (the young earth variant) in the 1980s, calling it “scientific creationism” and trying to teach it in his classes at San Francisco State. That didn’t go down particularly well with his more scientifically minded colleagues. The fact that they determined that creationism couldn’t be taught as science didn’t exactly change Kenyon’s mind, so he continued teaching it in other courses, leading to some major controversies at the university (where Kenyon claimed that “objections to his teaching rested on a positivist view of what constitutes legitimate science,” which is just a weasel phrase for “I should be allowed to teach my intuitions and convictions as being scientific regardless of whether they are backed up by evidence”). In the 1980s he became infamous for his involvement in the standard-setting McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard courtcases. In fact, Kenyon pulled out right before he was expected to testify in the first case. In the latter, Kenyon supplied an affidavit which ended up constituting the main part of the defense.

In the 1990s Kenyon became affiliated with the Discovery Institute. He is currently board member for the Kolbe Center, a Catholic YEC group.
Diagnosis: A grand old man of the wingnut fight against reality when reality don’t align with their wishful thinking. Has made major impacts and must still be considered dangerous.

 

[Hollie]

Now, why would a proponent alter the commonly accepted meaning of words? Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.

Problem is....it is dishonest, and false.

And...those who do so should be judged to have lost the argument.




"Intellectually Honest and Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics

1. Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes, like leftists calling government spending “investment” Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics




Here, an example of the words in question:

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge ;a conjecture.

Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

I believe that these are the commonly accepted meanings of the two terms....
To my mind, these two terms are not synonymous


1. Although every reference I've seen referred to "the theory of evolution," the most popular writer on the subject, Stephen J. Gould, pushed it way over toward "proven."


Gould: " Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"....."
http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution as Fact and Theory Gould 1981.pdf




2. Wow. Our pal, Dr. Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, as well as atheistic Marxist, seems willing to bend definitions to his desire when it comes to either religion or evolution.

a.fact: ' something that actually exists; reality; truth:

'Your fears have no basis in fact.'

something known to exist or to have happened
Fact Define Fact at Dictionary.com

b. something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence; a true piece of information
Fact - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But, shouldn't we wait for proof before we award the idea with the term 'fact'?
Especially in science.




3." Something demonstrated to exist ...."
And on that basis, of course, evolution is not a fact.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



But let's cut Gould some slack...after all, it's only been a century and a half, with more scientists working today than all previous scientists who ever lived, combined....


Proof of Darwin's view will be found any day now.....any day....

You ID'iot / Young Earth Creationists are a hoot.

Your entire world revolves around silly conspiracy theories.

I caught you in another lie, huh?

Sidestepping as usual. Your phony "quotes" are so easy to expose as fraud because you cut and paste the same lies repeatedly.

How many more times do you want to be exposed as a fraud and a liar?

It's your quote that you're running from....I took it wholly from the link you provided.


Smashed another custard pie in your face, huh?

Another of your steaming pant loads of quackery.

Yet again, you're exposed as a fraud.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

Yes, you'd think the PC types would put their energies into proving God exists instead of bad mouthing his creation.

This is the science forum.

Seems I'm the only one conversant with same.

Actually, you're typically confused and befuddled. You confused this forum with the "Those Really Wacky Young Earth Creationists", forum.



“People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

Yes, you'd think the PC types would put their energies into proving God exists instead of bad mouthing his creation.

This is the science forum.

Seems I'm the only one conversant with same.

Evolution occurs, that is a fact
The only theories relate to how and why

God is at best, a theory. A theory totally unsupported by scientific evidence

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

Yes, you'd think the PC types would put their energies into proving God exists instead of bad mouthing his creation.

This is the science forum.

Seems I'm the only one conversant with same.

Actually, you're typically confused and befuddled. You confused this forum with the "Those Really Wacky Young Earth Creationists", forum.



“People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

I can't begin to tell you how much I enjoy making you dance and jump through hoops.

I only post the truth.

You can't abide by that.....seems typical of haters like you.


When I do it, I feel like a puppeteer, pulling your strings! And I know exactly what each string is for:


One string is when you tell lies about what I've said or believe


Another string, making you blurt out something called 'Hockum pokem' or close to it


And a string is the where you attack any experts who post other than your hatred of religion....that may be the best one: attack the person who says it, don't deny the truth of what they say.


I love the one where you tries to insert creationism, or Intelligent Design, or something about gods.....anything but the subject at hand.

That's my show: I'm Abbot, you're Costello!

 

[rightwinger]

Intelligent design does occur

Animals like dogs, cats, cows and chickens are the result of intelligent design by man

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a THEORY

Yes, you'd think the PC types would put their energies into proving God exists instead of bad mouthing his creation.

This is the science forum.

Seems I'm the only one conversant with same.

Actually, you're typically confused and befuddled. You confused this forum with the "Those Really Wacky Young Earth Creationists", forum.



“People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

I can't begin to tell you how much I enjoy making you dance and jump through hoops.

I only post the truth.

You can't abide by that.....seems typical of haters like you.


When I do it, I feel like a puppeteer, pulling your strings! And I know exactly what each string is for:


One string is when you tell lies about what I've said or believe


Another string, making you blurt out something called 'Hockum pokem' or close to it


And a string is the where you attack any experts who post other than your hatred of religion....that may be the best one: attack the person who says it, don't deny the truth of what they say.


I love the one where you tries to insert creationism, or Intelligent Design, or something about gods.....anything but the subject at hand.

That's my show: I'm Abbot, you're Costello!

Your show is a Young Earth Creationist freak show.


“And to think of this great country in danger of being dominated by people ignorant enough to take a few ancient Babylonian legends as the canons of modern culture. Our scientific men are paying for their failure to speak out earlier. There is no use now talking evolution to these people. Their ears are stuffed with Genesis.”
― Luther Burbank




“Inveterate creationists, then or now, never allow their faith to fall victim to facts.”
― Robert T. Bakker, The Dinosaur Heresies: New Theories Unlocking the Mystery of the Dinosaurs and Their Extinction




“The biblical account of Noah's Ark and the Flood is perhaps the most implausible story for fundamentalists to defend. Where, for example, while loading his ark, did Noah find penguins and polar bears in Palestine?”
― Judith Hayes




“[N]early every creationist debater will mention the second law of thermodynamics and argue that complex systems like the earth and life cannot evolve, because the second law seems to say that everything in nature is running down and losing energy, not getting more complex. But that's NOT what the second law says; every creationist has heard this but refuses to acknowledge it. The second law only applies to closed systems, like a sealed jar of heated gases that gradually cools down and loses energy. But the earth is not a closed system -- it constantly gets new energy from the sun, and this (through photosynthesis) is what powers life and makes it possible for life to become more complex and evolve. It seems odd that the creationists continue to misuse the second law of thermodynamics when they have been corrected over and over again, but the reason is simple: it sounds impressive to their audience with limited science education, and if a snow job works, you stay with it.”
― Donald R. Prothero, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters