Evolution is a hoax

[crabwilder]

I don't think so, it's a natural process that take years, more than we can live.

[popcorn1]

Science theory ..
To tell the public it's fact to get money..

Scientist are the liars to get funds..

And how many scientist are QUACKS? the list below tells you

SO HOW RELIABLE was these scientist theories ..?

Well according to you 100%

And that's the trouble with some of you SCIENTIST YOUR FUCKING LIARS
to get FUNDED by government or private..MONEY MONEY MONEY..

So you say SCIENCE THEORY is fact to get monies ..
And many of your theories turn out to be a lie..

SO like i said SCIENCE THEORY IS NOT FACT so prove it to be FACT..
NOT a theory like these scientist below..WAS THEY 100% RELIABLE?..
 
One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn’t stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important, game-changing accomplishments a bit prematurely. Even in a field as rigorous and detail-oriented as science, theories get busted, mistakes are made, and hoaxes are perpetrated. The following are ten of the most groundbreaking of these scientific discoveries that turned out to be resting on some questionable data. It is worth noting that most of these concepts are not necessarily “wrong” in the traditional sense; rather, they have been replaced by other theories that are more complete and reliable.

10. The Discovery of Vulcan


Vulcan was a planet that nineteenth century scientists believed to exist somewhere between Mercury and the Sun. The mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier first proposed its existence after he and many other scientists were unable to explain certain peculiarities about Mercury’s orbit. Scientists like Le Verrier argued that this had to be caused by some object, like a small planet or moon, acting as a gravitational force. La Verrier called his hypothetical planet Vulcan, after the Roman god of fire. Soon, amateur astronomers around Europe, eager to be a part of a scientific discovery, contacted Le Verrier and claimed to have witnessed the mysterious planet making its transit around the Sun. For years afterward, Vulcan sightings continued to pour in from around the globe, and when La Verrier died in 1877, he was still regarded as having discovered a new planet in the solar system.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Without La Verrier acting as a cheerleader for Vulcan’s existence, it suddenly began to be doubted by many notable astronomers. The search was effectively abandoned in 1915, after Einstein’s theory of general relativity helped to explain once and for all why Mercury orbited the Sun in such a strange fashion. But amateur stargazers continued the search, and as recently as 1970 there have been people who have claimed to see a strange object orbiting the sun beyond Mercury. Amusingly, the entire would-be discovery’s greatest legacy today is that it inspired the name of the home planet of the character Spock from Star Trek.

9. Spontaneous Generation


Although it might seem a bit ludicrous today, for thousands of years it was believed that life regularly arose from the elements without first being formed through a seed, egg, or other traditional means of reproduction. The main purveyor of the theory was Aristotle, who based his studies on the ideas of thinkers like Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras, all of whom stressed the ways in which life could spontaneously come into being from inanimate matter like slime, mud, and earth when exposed to sunlight. Aristotle based his own ideas on the observation of the ways maggots would seemingly generate out of dead animal carcass, or barnacles would form on the hull of a boat. This theory that life could literally spring from nothing managed to persist for hundreds of years after Aristotle, and was even being proposed by some scientists as recently as the 1700s.

How it was Proven Wrong:

It was only with the adoption of the scientific method that many of the classical theories like spontaneous generation began to be tested. Once they were, they quickly crumbled. For example, famed scientist Louis Pasteur showed that maggots would not appear on meat kept in a sealed container, and the invention of the microscope helped to show that these same insects were formed not by spontaneous generation but by airborne microorganisms.


8. The Expanding Earth


Our modern understanding of the interior and behaviors of the Earth is strongly based around plate tectonics and the concept of subduction. But before this idea was widely accepted in the late 20th century, a good number of scientists subscribed to the much more fantastical theory that the Earth was forever increasing in volume. The expanding Earth hypothesis stated that phenomena like underwater mountain ranges and continental drift could be explained by the fact that the planet was gradually growing larger. As the globe’s size grew, proponents argued, the distances between continents would increase, as would the Earth’s crust, which would have explained the creation of new mountains. The theory has a long and storied past, beginning with Darwin, who briefly tinkered with it before casting it aside, and Nikola Tesla, who compared the process to that of the expansion of a dying star.

How it was Proven Wrong:

The expanding Earth hypothesis has never been proven wrong exactly, but it has been widely replaced with the much more sophisticated theory of plate tectonics. While the expanding Earth theory holds that all land masses were once connected, and that oceans and mountains were only created as a result of the planet’s growing volume, plate tectonics explains the same phenomena by way of plates in the lithosphere that move and converge beneath the Earth’s surface.

7. Phlogiston Theory


First expressed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667, phlogiston theory is the idea that all combustible objects—that is, anything that can catch fire—contain a special element called phlogiston that is released during burning, and which makes the whole process possible. In its traditional form, phlogiston was said to be without color, taste, or odor, and was only made visible when a flammable object, like a tree or a pile of leaves, caught fire. Once it was burned and all its phlogiston released, the object was said to once again exist in its true form, known as a “calx.” Beyond basic combustion, the theory also sought to explain chemical processes like the rusting of metals, and was even used as a means of understanding breathing, as pure oxygen was described as “dephlogistated air.”

How it was Proven Wrong:

The more experiments that were performed using the phlogiston model, the more dubious it became as a theory. One of the most significant was that when certain metals were burned, they actually gained weight instead of losing it, as they should have if phlogiston were being released. The idea eventually fell out of favor, and has since been replaced by more sophisticated theories, like oxidation.

6. The Martian Canals


The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that 19th century scientist mistakenly believed to exist on the red planet. The canals were first “discovered” in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli. After other stargazers corroborated his claim, the canals became something of a phenomenon. Scientists drew detailed maps tracing their paths, and soon wild speculation began on their possible origins and use. Perhaps the most absurd theory came from Percival Lowell, a mathematician and astronomer who jumped to the bizarre conclusion that the canals were a sophisticated irrigation system developed by an unknown intelligent species. Lowell’s hypothesis was widely discredited by other scientists, but it was also popularly accepted, and the idea managed to survive in some circles well into the 20th century.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Quite unspectacularly, the Martian canals were only proven to be a myth with the advent of greater telescopes and imaging technology. It turned out that what looked like canals was in fact an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blown across the Martian surface by heavy winds. Several scientists had proposed a similar theory in the early 1900s, but it was only proven correct in the 1960s when the first unmanned spacecraft made flybys over Mars and took pictures of its surface.

[Astargath]

Science theory ..
To tell the public it's fact to get money..

Scientist are the liars to get funds..

And how many scientist are QUACKS? the list below tells you

SO HOW RELIABLE was these scientist theories ..?

Well according to you 100%

And that's the trouble with some of you SCIENTIST YOUR FUCKING LIARS
to get FUNDED by government or private..MONEY MONEY MONEY..

So you say SCIENCE THEORY is fact to get monies ..
And many of your theories turn out to be a lie..

SO like i said SCIENCE THEORY IS NOT FACT so prove it to be FACT..
NOT a theory like these scientist below..WAS THEY 100% RELIABLE?..
 
One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn’t stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important, game-changing accomplishments a bit prematurely. Even in a field as rigorous and detail-oriented as science, theories get busted, mistakes are made, and hoaxes are perpetrated. The following are ten of the most groundbreaking of these scientific discoveries that turned out to be resting on some questionable data. It is worth noting that most of these concepts are not necessarily “wrong” in the traditional sense; rather, they have been replaced by other theories that are more complete and reliable.

10. The Discovery of Vulcan


Vulcan was a planet that nineteenth century scientists believed to exist somewhere between Mercury and the Sun. The mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier first proposed its existence after he and many other scientists were unable to explain certain peculiarities about Mercury’s orbit. Scientists like Le Verrier argued that this had to be caused by some object, like a small planet or moon, acting as a gravitational force. La Verrier called his hypothetical planet Vulcan, after the Roman god of fire. Soon, amateur astronomers around Europe, eager to be a part of a scientific discovery, contacted Le Verrier and claimed to have witnessed the mysterious planet making its transit around the Sun. For years afterward, Vulcan sightings continued to pour in from around the globe, and when La Verrier died in 1877, he was still regarded as having discovered a new planet in the solar system.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Without La Verrier acting as a cheerleader for Vulcan’s existence, it suddenly began to be doubted by many notable astronomers. The search was effectively abandoned in 1915, after Einstein’s theory of general relativity helped to explain once and for all why Mercury orbited the Sun in such a strange fashion. But amateur stargazers continued the search, and as recently as 1970 there have been people who have claimed to see a strange object orbiting the sun beyond Mercury. Amusingly, the entire would-be discovery’s greatest legacy today is that it inspired the name of the home planet of the character Spock from Star Trek.

9. Spontaneous Generation


Although it might seem a bit ludicrous today, for thousands of years it was believed that life regularly arose from the elements without first being formed through a seed, egg, or other traditional means of reproduction. The main purveyor of the theory was Aristotle, who based his studies on the ideas of thinkers like Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras, all of whom stressed the ways in which life could spontaneously come into being from inanimate matter like slime, mud, and earth when exposed to sunlight. Aristotle based his own ideas on the observation of the ways maggots would seemingly generate out of dead animal carcass, or barnacles would form on the hull of a boat. This theory that life could literally spring from nothing managed to persist for hundreds of years after Aristotle, and was even being proposed by some scientists as recently as the 1700s.

How it was Proven Wrong:

It was only with the adoption of the scientific method that many of the classical theories like spontaneous generation began to be tested. Once they were, they quickly crumbled. For example, famed scientist Louis Pasteur showed that maggots would not appear on meat kept in a sealed container, and the invention of the microscope helped to show that these same insects were formed not by spontaneous generation but by airborne microorganisms.


8. The Expanding Earth


Our modern understanding of the interior and behaviors of the Earth is strongly based around plate tectonics and the concept of subduction. But before this idea was widely accepted in the late 20th century, a good number of scientists subscribed to the much more fantastical theory that the Earth was forever increasing in volume. The expanding Earth hypothesis stated that phenomena like underwater mountain ranges and continental drift could be explained by the fact that the planet was gradually growing larger. As the globe’s size grew, proponents argued, the distances between continents would increase, as would the Earth’s crust, which would have explained the creation of new mountains. The theory has a long and storied past, beginning with Darwin, who briefly tinkered with it before casting it aside, and Nikola Tesla, who compared the process to that of the expansion of a dying star.

How it was Proven Wrong:

The expanding Earth hypothesis has never been proven wrong exactly, but it has been widely replaced with the much more sophisticated theory of plate tectonics. While the expanding Earth theory holds that all land masses were once connected, and that oceans and mountains were only created as a result of the planet’s growing volume, plate tectonics explains the same phenomena by way of plates in the lithosphere that move and converge beneath the Earth’s surface.

7. Phlogiston Theory


First expressed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667, phlogiston theory is the idea that all combustible objects—that is, anything that can catch fire—contain a special element called phlogiston that is released during burning, and which makes the whole process possible. In its traditional form, phlogiston was said to be without color, taste, or odor, and was only made visible when a flammable object, like a tree or a pile of leaves, caught fire. Once it was burned and all its phlogiston released, the object was said to once again exist in its true form, known as a “calx.” Beyond basic combustion, the theory also sought to explain chemical processes like the rusting of metals, and was even used as a means of understanding breathing, as pure oxygen was described as “dephlogistated air.”

How it was Proven Wrong:

The more experiments that were performed using the phlogiston model, the more dubious it became as a theory. One of the most significant was that when certain metals were burned, they actually gained weight instead of losing it, as they should have if phlogiston were being released. The idea eventually fell out of favor, and has since been replaced by more sophisticated theories, like oxidation.

6. The Martian Canals


The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that 19th century scientist mistakenly believed to exist on the red planet. The canals were first “discovered” in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli. After other stargazers corroborated his claim, the canals became something of a phenomenon. Scientists drew detailed maps tracing their paths, and soon wild speculation began on their possible origins and use. Perhaps the most absurd theory came from Percival Lowell, a mathematician and astronomer who jumped to the bizarre conclusion that the canals were a sophisticated irrigation system developed by an unknown intelligent species. Lowell’s hypothesis was widely discredited by other scientists, but it was also popularly accepted, and the idea managed to survive in some circles well into the 20th century.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Quite unspectacularly, the Martian canals were only proven to be a myth with the advent of greater telescopes and imaging technology. It turned out that what looked like canals was in fact an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blown across the Martian surface by heavy winds. Several scientists had proposed a similar theory in the early 1900s, but it was only proven correct in the 1960s when the first unmanned spacecraft made flybys over Mars and took pictures of its surface.

Just tell us already that you are trolling because you really are doing a good job.

[popcorn1]

Science theory ..
To tell the public it's fact to get money..

Scientist are the liars to get funds..

And how many scientist are QUACKS? the list below tells you

SO HOW RELIABLE was these scientist theories ..?

Well according to you 100%

And that's the trouble with some of you SCIENTIST YOUR FUCKING LIARS
to get FUNDED by government or private..MONEY MONEY MONEY..

So you say SCIENCE THEORY is fact to get monies ..
And many of your theories turn out to be a lie..

SO like i said SCIENCE THEORY IS NOT FACT so prove it to be FACT..
NOT a theory like these scientist below..WAS THEY 100% RELIABLE?..
 
One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn’t stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important, game-changing accomplishments a bit prematurely. Even in a field as rigorous and detail-oriented as science, theories get busted, mistakes are made, and hoaxes are perpetrated. The following are ten of the most groundbreaking of these scientific discoveries that turned out to be resting on some questionable data. It is worth noting that most of these concepts are not necessarily “wrong” in the traditional sense; rather, they have been replaced by other theories that are more complete and reliable.

10. The Discovery of Vulcan


Vulcan was a planet that nineteenth century scientists believed to exist somewhere between Mercury and the Sun. The mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier first proposed its existence after he and many other scientists were unable to explain certain peculiarities about Mercury’s orbit. Scientists like Le Verrier argued that this had to be caused by some object, like a small planet or moon, acting as a gravitational force. La Verrier called his hypothetical planet Vulcan, after the Roman god of fire. Soon, amateur astronomers around Europe, eager to be a part of a scientific discovery, contacted Le Verrier and claimed to have witnessed the mysterious planet making its transit around the Sun. For years afterward, Vulcan sightings continued to pour in from around the globe, and when La Verrier died in 1877, he was still regarded as having discovered a new planet in the solar system.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Without La Verrier acting as a cheerleader for Vulcan’s existence, it suddenly began to be doubted by many notable astronomers. The search was effectively abandoned in 1915, after Einstein’s theory of general relativity helped to explain once and for all why Mercury orbited the Sun in such a strange fashion. But amateur stargazers continued the search, and as recently as 1970 there have been people who have claimed to see a strange object orbiting the sun beyond Mercury. Amusingly, the entire would-be discovery’s greatest legacy today is that it inspired the name of the home planet of the character Spock from Star Trek.

9. Spontaneous Generation


Although it might seem a bit ludicrous today, for thousands of years it was believed that life regularly arose from the elements without first being formed through a seed, egg, or other traditional means of reproduction. The main purveyor of the theory was Aristotle, who based his studies on the ideas of thinkers like Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras, all of whom stressed the ways in which life could spontaneously come into being from inanimate matter like slime, mud, and earth when exposed to sunlight. Aristotle based his own ideas on the observation of the ways maggots would seemingly generate out of dead animal carcass, or barnacles would form on the hull of a boat. This theory that life could literally spring from nothing managed to persist for hundreds of years after Aristotle, and was even being proposed by some scientists as recently as the 1700s.

How it was Proven Wrong:

It was only with the adoption of the scientific method that many of the classical theories like spontaneous generation began to be tested. Once they were, they quickly crumbled. For example, famed scientist Louis Pasteur showed that maggots would not appear on meat kept in a sealed container, and the invention of the microscope helped to show that these same insects were formed not by spontaneous generation but by airborne microorganisms.


8. The Expanding Earth


Our modern understanding of the interior and behaviors of the Earth is strongly based around plate tectonics and the concept of subduction. But before this idea was widely accepted in the late 20th century, a good number of scientists subscribed to the much more fantastical theory that the Earth was forever increasing in volume. The expanding Earth hypothesis stated that phenomena like underwater mountain ranges and continental drift could be explained by the fact that the planet was gradually growing larger. As the globe’s size grew, proponents argued, the distances between continents would increase, as would the Earth’s crust, which would have explained the creation of new mountains. The theory has a long and storied past, beginning with Darwin, who briefly tinkered with it before casting it aside, and Nikola Tesla, who compared the process to that of the expansion of a dying star.

How it was Proven Wrong:

The expanding Earth hypothesis has never been proven wrong exactly, but it has been widely replaced with the much more sophisticated theory of plate tectonics. While the expanding Earth theory holds that all land masses were once connected, and that oceans and mountains were only created as a result of the planet’s growing volume, plate tectonics explains the same phenomena by way of plates in the lithosphere that move and converge beneath the Earth’s surface.

7. Phlogiston Theory


First expressed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667, phlogiston theory is the idea that all combustible objects—that is, anything that can catch fire—contain a special element called phlogiston that is released during burning, and which makes the whole process possible. In its traditional form, phlogiston was said to be without color, taste, or odor, and was only made visible when a flammable object, like a tree or a pile of leaves, caught fire. Once it was burned and all its phlogiston released, the object was said to once again exist in its true form, known as a “calx.” Beyond basic combustion, the theory also sought to explain chemical processes like the rusting of metals, and was even used as a means of understanding breathing, as pure oxygen was described as “dephlogistated air.”

How it was Proven Wrong:

The more experiments that were performed using the phlogiston model, the more dubious it became as a theory. One of the most significant was that when certain metals were burned, they actually gained weight instead of losing it, as they should have if phlogiston were being released. The idea eventually fell out of favor, and has since been replaced by more sophisticated theories, like oxidation.

6. The Martian Canals


The Martian canals were a network of gullies and ravines that 19th century scientist mistakenly believed to exist on the red planet. The canals were first “discovered” in 1877 by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli. After other stargazers corroborated his claim, the canals became something of a phenomenon. Scientists drew detailed maps tracing their paths, and soon wild speculation began on their possible origins and use. Perhaps the most absurd theory came from Percival Lowell, a mathematician and astronomer who jumped to the bizarre conclusion that the canals were a sophisticated irrigation system developed by an unknown intelligent species. Lowell’s hypothesis was widely discredited by other scientists, but it was also popularly accepted, and the idea managed to survive in some circles well into the 20th century.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Quite unspectacularly, the Martian canals were only proven to be a myth with the advent of greater telescopes and imaging technology. It turned out that what looked like canals was in fact an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blown across the Martian surface by heavy winds. Several scientists had proposed a similar theory in the early 1900s, but it was only proven correct in the 1960s when the first unmanned spacecraft made flybys over Mars and took pictures of its surface.

Just tell us already that you are trolling because you really are doing a good job.

Trolling ? who is superman here? hero member ..
That means i speak my mind..
I can fly on this thread you cannot i am a HERO  ..

popcorn1
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 728

Trolling i don't know what you mean  ..No i really don't ..

You do know what i say goes because it's the only way to make our world better..
You do know this planet is 1 big living thing IT'S ALIVE..

Scientist will now know SCIENCE THEORY is not fact ..
It's a THEORY yet  to be proven to be a fact.

That way NO LIARS..

This is my world and you will do as i say YOU HAVE NO CHOICE  ..

It's funny because you will think HOW ..If only you knew..

Don't worry i am fair and this world will be good if you follow if you don't we all die..
EVERYONE..

We are programmed by the EARTH and you will do as it tells you..
You have no control over what we do because it makes us do it..

And SCIENCE is one programme the EARTH programmed us to do..
IT MAKES US LIVE ON FOREVER..

We are little seeds human seeds EARTH SEEDS to expand into the UNIVERSE
it's why humans LOVE SPACE we feel we need to get out there ..HUMAN EARTH SEEDS

To make new planets to find new planets because like a seed it needs to be planted somewhere
else..

ALSO i wonder if we come from plant life and turned in to a creature ..
Because they say we have BANANA DNA ..

No your the BANANA just in case your thinking i am one ..

MY mind is thinks of the future i have to to invent something everyone wants..
The only way to be RICH ..LEGAL WAY to be rich anyways..

So my mind thinks about products of all kinds ..

And even sometimes i see a documentary on space it hurts because i am thinking you liars
It hurts my mind..

And so to all scientist A SCIENCE THEORY is not fact until you prove it to be so..

The whole meaning of even putting the word THEORY is so you can test and test to prove this theory to be fact..

Because they be no need to even use the word THEORY ..

Now i am giving you my THEORY on the word science theory AND i hold more substance than you do..

Because you say a theory is FACT when land or sea aliens or misty rock?
how humans come to be ..

And it's not like we have stopped theorising about how we come to be IS IT?..

I am sick of this PLANET WITH LIARS ..

Everyone is lying for MONEY..
And if you think about it when a scientist as a theory and says it's fact he is trying to get money or fame ..
When really he has not proved is theory to be fact..

What pushes scientists to lie? The disturbing but familiar story of ...
https://www.theguardian.com › Science › Stem cells
18 Feb 2015 - At least that's the theory. Carrel's chicken heart experiment shows how far science can stray from the scientific method. And the fault doesn't just..

SO LIKE I SAID..

Science theory because it has the word THEORY in it's sentence by the meaning of the word THEORY
it means to guess and test to prove what you say is FACT..

So in the 21ST century NOT the 18TH
You will use the word theory as

hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion; ..

And you use all these words to come to the TRUTH FACT in the science field you study..

The very word THEORY used in SCIENCE THEORY means..

hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion..

USE those word to come to a FACT when studying your known field..

[popcorn1]

Lying scientists and the lying lies they tell | ZDNet
www.zdnet.com/article/lying-scientists-and-the-lying-lies-they-tell/
19 Jul 2016 - Then there's Yoshitaka Fujii, who reportedly holds the current record for most retractions at 183. Wouldn't it have been easier to just do the work ..

Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their ...
news.stanford.edu/2015/11/16/fraud-science-papers-111615/
16 Nov 2015 - Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about ... data know that they are committing a misconduct and do not want to get ...

Are scientists lying more than ever? | ITworld
www.itworld.com/article/2718456/.../are-scientists-lying-more-than-ever-.html
5 Oct 2012 - Like many people who view themselves as objective and rational (which is, what, everybody?), I've always placed great trust in science. And for

When scientists lie - Ockham's Razor - ABC Radio National (Australian ...
www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/...scientists-lie.../7660464
26 Jul 2016 - How can science identify and stop the fraudsters? ... He maintained, however, that he could not do so, as he had not kept his laboratory notes .

And your sitting listening to the theories saying 100% reliable ..

[popcorn1]

Humans 'may have evolved with genes from plants' study finds ...
www.telegraph.co.uk › News › Science
13 Mar 2015 - Humans may have evolved with genes acquired from plants, micro-organisms and fungi according to a new study. The University of Cambridge .

Oh so now they study if we come from plant life ..
See i am always right..

I do feel that's how we got here ..
Because many things plants do humans do it to..

How the Venus Flytrap Kills and Digests Its Prey - Live Science
https://www.livescience.com › Animals
5 Sep 2011 - Venus flytraps are the speed demons of the plant world. In spite of belonging to a particularly sedate kingdom of organisms, these carnivorous plants snap shut their two-lobed traps in a tenth of a second to capture an insect meal, which they then digest..

Now i give a scientific theories that could very well be TRUE but is it FACT?..

So my points prove what i say is FACT ..
Your points prove you WRONG..

So is a science theory FACT .. i just proved you wrong..

The University of Cambridge   THINKS i am right

[Astargath]

Humans 'may have evolved with genes from plants' study finds ...
www.telegraph.co.uk › News › Science
13 Mar 2015 - Humans may have evolved with genes acquired from plants, micro-organisms and fungi according to a new study. The University of Cambridge .

Oh so now they study if we come from plant life ..
See i am always right..

I do feel that's how we got here ..
Because many things plants do humans do it to..

How the Venus Flytrap Kills and Digests Its Prey - Live Science
https://www.livescience.com › Animals
5 Sep 2011 - Venus flytraps are the speed demons of the plant world. In spite of belonging to a particularly sedate kingdom of organisms, these carnivorous plants snap shut their two-lobed traps in a tenth of a second to capture an insect meal, which they then digest..

Now i give a scientific theories that could very well be TRUE but is it FACT?..

So my points prove what i say is FACT ..
Your points prove you WRONG..

So is a science theory FACT .. i just proved you wrong..

The University of Cambridge   THINKS i am right

Moloch already explained it to you but you keep insisting like a broken machine. A fact is one piece a data... a theory is a collection of data... it could never be called the "fact of evolution" because there is more than 1 piece of data... the best it gets is the "theory of evolution"

For example, chimps and humans share a common ancestor, that's a fact and we know it thanks to genetics. That's a part of evolution.
Bears, seals, and dogs are closely related carnivores but are on a different branch of the evolutionary tree than cats and hyenas. That's a fact and part of evolution
Some snakes have hipbones, which shows they once had four legs like lizards, their close cousins, that's a fact and part of evolution.

Now as you can see we know a lot of things to be fact, things that are part of evolution, however we don't know all of them and probably never will. No one knows exactly how every species evolved to others, obviously so at best scientists can hypothesize about it. Do you not understand this? What's important here is that these species do evolve and mutate and that proves evolution is real, sure we don't know how this one evolved to this other one exactly but we know it happened which proves evolution is real.

[BADecker]

Humans 'may have evolved with genes from plants' study finds ...
www.telegraph.co.uk › News › Science
13 Mar 2015 - Humans may have evolved with genes acquired from plants, micro-organisms and fungi according to a new study. The University of Cambridge .

Oh so now they study if we come from plant life ..
See i am always right..

I do feel that's how we got here ..
Because many things plants do humans do it to..

How the Venus Flytrap Kills and Digests Its Prey - Live Science
https://www.livescience.com › Animals
5 Sep 2011 - Venus flytraps are the speed demons of the plant world. In spite of belonging to a particularly sedate kingdom of organisms, these carnivorous plants snap shut their two-lobed traps in a tenth of a second to capture an insect meal, which they then digest..

Now i give a scientific theories that could very well be TRUE but is it FACT?..

So my points prove what i say is FACT ..
Your points prove you WRONG..

So is a science theory FACT .. i just proved you wrong..

The University of Cambridge   THINKS i am right

Moloch already explained it to you but you keep insisting like a broken machine. A fact is one piece a data... a theory is a collection of data... it could never be called the "fact of evolution" because there is more than 1 piece of data... the best it gets is the "theory of evolution"

For example, chimps and humans share a common ancestor, that's a fact and we know it thanks to genetics. That's a part of evolution.
Bears, seals, and dogs are closely related carnivores but are on a different branch of the evolutionary tree than cats and hyenas. That's a fact and part of evolution
Some snakes have hipbones, which shows they once had four legs like lizards, their close cousins, that's a fact and part of evolution.

Now as you can see we know a lot of things to be fact, things that are part of evolution, however we don't know all of them and probably never will. No one knows exactly how every species evolved to others, obviously so at best scientists can hypothesize about it. Do you not understand this? What's important here is that these species do evolve and mutate and that proves evolution is real, sure we don't know how this one evolved to this other one exactly but we know it happened which proves evolution is real.

Mwahahahahaha... Chimps and humans share a common ancestor... Mwahahahahaha.

Ninety-seven percent of all DNA is the same in all animals. God made it this way so that the whole system of nature on earth could work together.

Yet there are enough differences in the other 3% that scientists can barely make cross-DNA life work. And when they do, the gain in specific traits is outpaced and outclassed by many losses in other abilities/areas.

Even Monsanto has problems with plants. After much work, they can make plants that are new genetic strains... new ones that boast special characteristics, but die off after the first generation. Luther Burbank, who died almost a hundred years ago, is doing a better job than Monsanto. Why? Because he didn't do the stupidity of genetics.

Chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Mwahahahahaha.

Stuff simply doesn't work like that. And scientist know it. And you saps believe their BS. Mwahahahahaha.

[Astargath]

Humans 'may have evolved with genes from plants' study finds ...
www.telegraph.co.uk › News › Science
13 Mar 2015 - Humans may have evolved with genes acquired from plants, micro-organisms and fungi according to a new study. The University of Cambridge .

Oh so now they study if we come from plant life ..
See i am always right..

I do feel that's how we got here ..
Because many things plants do humans do it to..

How the Venus Flytrap Kills and Digests Its Prey - Live Science
https://www.livescience.com › Animals
5 Sep 2011 - Venus flytraps are the speed demons of the plant world. In spite of belonging to a particularly sedate kingdom of organisms, these carnivorous plants snap shut their two-lobed traps in a tenth of a second to capture an insect meal, which they then digest..

Now i give a scientific theories that could very well be TRUE but is it FACT?..

So my points prove what i say is FACT ..
Your points prove you WRONG..

So is a science theory FACT .. i just proved you wrong..

The University of Cambridge   THINKS i am right

Moloch already explained it to you but you keep insisting like a broken machine. A fact is one piece a data... a theory is a collection of data... it could never be called the "fact of evolution" because there is more than 1 piece of data... the best it gets is the "theory of evolution"

For example, chimps and humans share a common ancestor, that's a fact and we know it thanks to genetics. That's a part of evolution.
Bears, seals, and dogs are closely related carnivores but are on a different branch of the evolutionary tree than cats and hyenas. That's a fact and part of evolution
Some snakes have hipbones, which shows they once had four legs like lizards, their close cousins, that's a fact and part of evolution.

Now as you can see we know a lot of things to be fact, things that are part of evolution, however we don't know all of them and probably never will. No one knows exactly how every species evolved to others, obviously so at best scientists can hypothesize about it. Do you not understand this? What's important here is that these species do evolve and mutate and that proves evolution is real, sure we don't know how this one evolved to this other one exactly but we know it happened which proves evolution is real.

Mwahahahahaha... Chimps and humans share a common ancestor... Mwahahahahaha.

Ninety-seven percent of all DNA is the same in all animals. God made it this way so that the whole system of nature on earth could work together.

Yet there are enough differences in the other 3% that scientists can barely make cross-DNA life work. And when they do, the gain in specific traits is outpaced and outclassed by many losses in other abilities/areas.

Even Monsanto has problems with plants. After much work, they can make plants that are new genetic strains... new ones that boast special characteristics, but die off after the first generation. Luther Burbank, who died almost a hundred years ago, is doing a better job than Monsanto. Why? Because he didn't do the stupidity of genetics.

Chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Mwahahahahaha.

Stuff simply doesn't work like that. And scientist know it. And you saps believe their BS. Mwahahahahaha.

Oh wait, so you know believe in DNA? I thought you dismissed that and all the other science because it was circular reference? In the future there won't be retards denying evolution, as I previously mentioned educational level: 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education. So hopefully in the future most people will be educated enough.

[BADecker]

Humans 'may have evolved with genes from plants' study finds ...
www.telegraph.co.uk › News › Science
13 Mar 2015 - Humans may have evolved with genes acquired from plants, micro-organisms and fungi according to a new study. The University of Cambridge .

Oh so now they study if we come from plant life ..
See i am always right..

I do feel that's how we got here ..
Because many things plants do humans do it to..

How the Venus Flytrap Kills and Digests Its Prey - Live Science
https://www.livescience.com › Animals
5 Sep 2011 - Venus flytraps are the speed demons of the plant world. In spite of belonging to a particularly sedate kingdom of organisms, these carnivorous plants snap shut their two-lobed traps in a tenth of a second to capture an insect meal, which they then digest..

Now i give a scientific theories that could very well be TRUE but is it FACT?..

So my points prove what i say is FACT ..
Your points prove you WRONG..

So is a science theory FACT .. i just proved you wrong..

The University of Cambridge   THINKS i am right

Moloch already explained it to you but you keep insisting like a broken machine. A fact is one piece a data... a theory is a collection of data... it could never be called the "fact of evolution" because there is more than 1 piece of data... the best it gets is the "theory of evolution"

For example, chimps and humans share a common ancestor, that's a fact and we know it thanks to genetics. That's a part of evolution.
Bears, seals, and dogs are closely related carnivores but are on a different branch of the evolutionary tree than cats and hyenas. That's a fact and part of evolution
Some snakes have hipbones, which shows they once had four legs like lizards, their close cousins, that's a fact and part of evolution.

Now as you can see we know a lot of things to be fact, things that are part of evolution, however we don't know all of them and probably never will. No one knows exactly how every species evolved to others, obviously so at best scientists can hypothesize about it. Do you not understand this? What's important here is that these species do evolve and mutate and that proves evolution is real, sure we don't know how this one evolved to this other one exactly but we know it happened which proves evolution is real.

Mwahahahahaha... Chimps and humans share a common ancestor... Mwahahahahaha.

Ninety-seven percent of all DNA is the same in all animals. God made it this way so that the whole system of nature on earth could work together.

Yet there are enough differences in the other 3% that scientists can barely make cross-DNA life work. And when they do, the gain in specific traits is outpaced and outclassed by many losses in other abilities/areas.

Even Monsanto has problems with plants. After much work, they can make plants that are new genetic strains... new ones that boast special characteristics, but die off after the first generation. Luther Burbank, who died almost a hundred years ago, is doing a better job than Monsanto. Why? Because he didn't do the stupidity of genetics.

Chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Mwahahahahaha.

Stuff simply doesn't work like that. And scientist know it. And you saps believe their BS. Mwahahahahaha.

Oh wait, so you know believe in DNA? I thought you dismissed that and all the other science because it was circular reference? In the future there won't be retards denying evolution, as I previously mentioned educational level: 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education. So hopefully in the future most people will be educated enough.

WHAT? You stupid retard. You don't even know what believing in DNA means.

"If brains was gasoline, you wouldn't have enough to drive an ant's gocart around the inside of a cheerio."

"In the future there won't be retards denying evolution," because everybody will have forgotten about this stupidity. Why? Because, as written in other threads (and maybe even this one), religion is decreasing all over the place. And even the evolution religion will collapse.

If you wouldn't sit at the keyboard so long, your brains might have enough strength to understand the folly of the evolution fiction.

[Astargath]

Humans 'may have evolved with genes from plants' study finds ...
www.telegraph.co.uk › News › Science
13 Mar 2015 - Humans may have evolved with genes acquired from plants, micro-organisms and fungi according to a new study. The University of Cambridge .

Oh so now they study if we come from plant life ..
See i am always right..

I do feel that's how we got here ..
Because many things plants do humans do it to..

How the Venus Flytrap Kills and Digests Its Prey - Live Science
https://www.livescience.com › Animals
5 Sep 2011 - Venus flytraps are the speed demons of the plant world. In spite of belonging to a particularly sedate kingdom of organisms, these carnivorous plants snap shut their two-lobed traps in a tenth of a second to capture an insect meal, which they then digest..

Now i give a scientific theories that could very well be TRUE but is it FACT?..

So my points prove what i say is FACT ..
Your points prove you WRONG..

So is a science theory FACT .. i just proved you wrong..

The University of Cambridge   THINKS i am right

Moloch already explained it to you but you keep insisting like a broken machine. A fact is one piece a data... a theory is a collection of data... it could never be called the "fact of evolution" because there is more than 1 piece of data... the best it gets is the "theory of evolution"

For example, chimps and humans share a common ancestor, that's a fact and we know it thanks to genetics. That's a part of evolution.
Bears, seals, and dogs are closely related carnivores but are on a different branch of the evolutionary tree than cats and hyenas. That's a fact and part of evolution
Some snakes have hipbones, which shows they once had four legs like lizards, their close cousins, that's a fact and part of evolution.

Now as you can see we know a lot of things to be fact, things that are part of evolution, however we don't know all of them and probably never will. No one knows exactly how every species evolved to others, obviously so at best scientists can hypothesize about it. Do you not understand this? What's important here is that these species do evolve and mutate and that proves evolution is real, sure we don't know how this one evolved to this other one exactly but we know it happened which proves evolution is real.

Mwahahahahaha... Chimps and humans share a common ancestor... Mwahahahahaha.

Ninety-seven percent of all DNA is the same in all animals. God made it this way so that the whole system of nature on earth could work together.

Yet there are enough differences in the other 3% that scientists can barely make cross-DNA life work. And when they do, the gain in specific traits is outpaced and outclassed by many losses in other abilities/areas.

Even Monsanto has problems with plants. After much work, they can make plants that are new genetic strains... new ones that boast special characteristics, but die off after the first generation. Luther Burbank, who died almost a hundred years ago, is doing a better job than Monsanto. Why? Because he didn't do the stupidity of genetics.

Chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Mwahahahahaha.

Stuff simply doesn't work like that. And scientist know it. And you saps believe their BS. Mwahahahahaha.

Oh wait, so you know believe in DNA? I thought you dismissed that and all the other science because it was circular reference? In the future there won't be retards denying evolution, as I previously mentioned educational level: 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education. So hopefully in the future most people will be educated enough.

WHAT? You stupid retard. You don't even know what believing in DNA means.

"If brains was gasoline, you wouldn't have enough to drive an ant's gocart around the inside of a cheerio."

"In the future there won't be retards denying evolution," because everybody will have forgotten about this stupidity. Why? Because, as written in other threads (and maybe even this one), religion is decreasing all over the place. And even the evolution religion will collapse.

If you wouldn't sit at the keyboard so long, your brains might have enough strength to understand the folly of the evolution fiction.

No, because everyone will accept it. Even religious people accept evolution more and more with time, up to 90% some religions and even Christianity at 70% So in the future there won't be any retard denying evolution, maybe a few extremists. Religion is also decreasing because we are smarter, we know more things and we are less ignorant so there is no need to believe in god anymore.

Just like you don't understand what theory means you obviously don't know what a religion is either.
Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental. Religions relate humanity to what anthropologist Clifford Geertz has referred to as a cosmic "order of existence"
Evolution doesn't have any views on ethics or behaviors or practices, evolution doesn't tell you what to do. It's far from being a religion.

[BADecker]

Humans 'may have evolved with genes from plants' study finds ...
www.telegraph.co.uk › News › Science
13 Mar 2015 - Humans may have evolved with genes acquired from plants, micro-organisms and fungi according to a new study. The University of Cambridge .

Oh so now they study if we come from plant life ..
See i am always right..

I do feel that's how we got here ..
Because many things plants do humans do it to..

How the Venus Flytrap Kills and Digests Its Prey - Live Science
https://www.livescience.com › Animals
5 Sep 2011 - Venus flytraps are the speed demons of the plant world. In spite of belonging to a particularly sedate kingdom of organisms, these carnivorous plants snap shut their two-lobed traps in a tenth of a second to capture an insect meal, which they then digest..

Now i give a scientific theories that could very well be TRUE but is it FACT?..

So my points prove what i say is FACT ..
Your points prove you WRONG..

So is a science theory FACT .. i just proved you wrong..

The University of Cambridge   THINKS i am right

Moloch already explained it to you but you keep insisting like a broken machine. A fact is one piece a data... a theory is a collection of data... it could never be called the "fact of evolution" because there is more than 1 piece of data... the best it gets is the "theory of evolution"

For example, chimps and humans share a common ancestor, that's a fact and we know it thanks to genetics. That's a part of evolution.
Bears, seals, and dogs are closely related carnivores but are on a different branch of the evolutionary tree than cats and hyenas. That's a fact and part of evolution
Some snakes have hipbones, which shows they once had four legs like lizards, their close cousins, that's a fact and part of evolution.

Now as you can see we know a lot of things to be fact, things that are part of evolution, however we don't know all of them and probably never will. No one knows exactly how every species evolved to others, obviously so at best scientists can hypothesize about it. Do you not understand this? What's important here is that these species do evolve and mutate and that proves evolution is real, sure we don't know how this one evolved to this other one exactly but we know it happened which proves evolution is real.

Mwahahahahaha... Chimps and humans share a common ancestor... Mwahahahahaha.

Ninety-seven percent of all DNA is the same in all animals. God made it this way so that the whole system of nature on earth could work together.

Yet there are enough differences in the other 3% that scientists can barely make cross-DNA life work. And when they do, the gain in specific traits is outpaced and outclassed by many losses in other abilities/areas.

Even Monsanto has problems with plants. After much work, they can make plants that are new genetic strains... new ones that boast special characteristics, but die off after the first generation. Luther Burbank, who died almost a hundred years ago, is doing a better job than Monsanto. Why? Because he didn't do the stupidity of genetics.

Chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Mwahahahahaha.

Stuff simply doesn't work like that. And scientist know it. And you saps believe their BS. Mwahahahahaha.

Oh wait, so you know believe in DNA? I thought you dismissed that and all the other science because it was circular reference? In the future there won't be retards denying evolution, as I previously mentioned educational level: 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education. So hopefully in the future most people will be educated enough.

WHAT? You stupid retard. You don't even know what believing in DNA means.

"If brains was gasoline, you wouldn't have enough to drive an ant's gocart around the inside of a cheerio."

"In the future there won't be retards denying evolution," because everybody will have forgotten about this stupidity. Why? Because, as written in other threads (and maybe even this one), religion is decreasing all over the place. And even the evolution religion will collapse.

If you wouldn't sit at the keyboard so long, your brains might have enough strength to understand the folly of the evolution fiction.

No, because everyone will accept it. Even religious people accept evolution more and more with time, up to 90% some religions and even Christianity at 70% So in the future there won't be any retard denying evolution, maybe a few extremists. Religion is also decreasing because we are smarter, we know more things and we are less ignorant so there is no need to believe in god anymore.

Just like you don't understand what theory means you obviously don't know what a religion is either.
Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental. Religions relate humanity to what anthropologist Clifford Geertz has referred to as a cosmic "order of existence"
Evolution doesn't have any views on ethics or behaviors or practices, evolution doesn't tell you what to do. It's far from being a religion.

People accepting things doesn't make fact.

God's own people rejected Him over and over. They were punished, right up to being disbanded as a nation in 70 A.D, because God finally got fed up with forgiving their weak and false repentance. And even though He allowed them to reform as a nation, again, they mostly still reject His son as Savior.

It doesn't matter what you jokers think. What matters is what is truth. God tells us truth about evolution in the Bible. Evolution tells us truth right within the fact that it is theory - not known to be factual. Science tells us truth in the fact that it shows evolution to be impossible.

It's not truth you are rebelling against when you set up your false religion of evolution. It is God. Change, before it is to late for you.

[bkbirge]

People accepting things doesn't make fact.

Scientists only accept hypothesis when they are fully tested and become scientific theories. Their acceptance includes rigorous testing of the hypothesis BEFORE it is ever called a scientific theory.

What matters is what is truth.

A quick survey of what most people really prize, even in this thread, would disabuse us of that notion. Comfort rather than knowledge seems to be the currency.

God tells us truth about evolution in the Bible.

I won't argue about specifics of what God says or does not say, frankly religion shouldn't enter the debate at all. However, given that you and others have demonstrated a lack of understanding of not only what evolution actually is but also elementary science concepts how would you be able to discern anything God says as relating to evolution at all? If God is speaking about evolution in the bible how would you even understand it?

Evolution tells us truth right within the fact that it is theory - not known to be factual.

"Scientific theory" NOT "theory". Scientific theories are factual. They describe observed reality. They have been tested. They are fact not conjecture. The conjecture part of science is called the "hypothesis".

Science tells us truth in the fact that it shows evolution to be impossible.

I suspect your personal definition of "science" does not track with what the word actually means because otherwise your statement is flat out false.

[Astargath]

People accepting things doesn't make fact.

Scientists only accept hypothesis when they are fully tested and become scientific theories. Their acceptance includes rigorous testing of the hypothesis BEFORE it is ever called a scientific theory.

What matters is what is truth.

A quick survey of what most people really prize, even in this thread, would disabuse us of that notion. Comfort rather than knowledge seems to be the currency.

God tells us truth about evolution in the Bible.

I won't argue about specifics of what God says or does not say, frankly religion shouldn't enter the debate at all. However, given that you and others have demonstrated a lack of understanding of not only what evolution actually is but also elementary science concepts how would you be able to discern anything God says as relating to evolution at all? If God is speaking about evolution in the bible how would you even understand it?

Evolution tells us truth right within the fact that it is theory - not known to be factual.

"Scientific theory" NOT "theory". Scientific theories are factual. They describe observed reality. They have been tested. They are fact not conjecture. The conjecture part of science is called the "hypothesis".

Science tells us truth in the fact that it shows evolution to be impossible.

I suspect your personal definition of "science" does not track with what the word actually means because otherwise your statement is flat out false.

It doesn't matter, badecker will simply ignore what you said. We already explained to him what a scientific theory means and he keeps saying the same shit over and over again as if only things that have the label ''fact'' on them are actually useful. You will not convince a religious extremist like badecker of anything, he can't critically think.

[Moloch]

Look you know i am right so stop please ..

Lets just agree to disagree..

I say a science theory is not fact because they even use the word theory in the sentence ..

You are still being intentionally ignorant, so I'll clarify again

A fact is one piece a data... a theory is a collection of data... it could never be called the "fact of evolution" because there is more than 1 piece of data... the best it gets is the "theory of evolution"

I'm sorry you fail to understand the word theory in a scientific context... theory is the BEST it gets, it does not get any better... you cannot prove it more than theory... theory means it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt

There is zero debate whether scientific theory should be treated as fact or "just a hunch"... among scientists, anything called a theory can be relied upon to be an accurate description of reality... scientists will stake their life on a theory (and do so every day)... theory does not mean hypothesis... theory means it has been proven as well as possible given the entirety of information available to the planet... and zero people have come up with a justifiable reason to doubt the theory

So yes, a scientific theory is a reliable fact that explains the data and predicts future outcomes with 100% reliability... scientists do not debate this, because they all understand this simple concept

If a theory could not 100% reliably predict future outcomes, it would be downgraded to a hypothesis, and not called a theory

Scientists don't debate evolution because there isn't really anything to debate... It's a collection of facts from several different sciences leading to an obvious conclusion...

It fucking you ..

STUPID CUNT..A theory is not FACT  SO FUCK OFF CUNT..

STUPID FUCKERS..

lol, rofl, lmao

You mad bro?

You want to debate, or just call each other a cunt?

LMFAO

[BADecker]

People accepting things doesn't make fact.

Scientists only accept hypothesis when they are fully tested and become scientific theories. Their acceptance includes rigorous testing of the hypothesis BEFORE it is ever called a scientific theory.

What matters is what is truth.

A quick survey of what most people really prize, even in this thread, would disabuse us of that notion. Comfort rather than knowledge seems to be the currency.

God tells us truth about evolution in the Bible.

I won't argue about specifics of what God says or does not say, frankly religion shouldn't enter the debate at all. However, given that you and others have demonstrated a lack of understanding of not only what evolution actually is but also elementary science concepts how would you be able to discern anything God says as relating to evolution at all? If God is speaking about evolution in the bible how would you even understand it?

Evolution tells us truth right within the fact that it is theory - not known to be factual.

"Scientific theory" NOT "theory". Scientific theories are factual. They describe observed reality. They have been tested. They are fact not conjecture. The conjecture part of science is called the "hypothesis".

Science tells us truth in the fact that it shows evolution to be impossible.

I suspect your personal definition of "science" does not track with what the word actually means because otherwise your statement is flat out false.

You can make a scientific theory that looks very good. But if you ignore all the things that are against it, and do not examine your theory with regards to all those things, you theory is not really a theory.

Google for topics that show how the evolution theory is impossible. There are many. Their rebuttal is inconclusive, while they show how evolution is impossible. Several of these are:
1. Cause and effect in everything show that any change in nature was programmed;
2. Probability math that suggests that all the necessary parts of a living cell can never come together in such a way that will actually produce life, or change it;
3. Irreducible Complexity shows that there are a bunch of "gaps" without purpose between the formation of complex body parts... gaps that go against natural selection;
4. The longer something sits around (billions of years) the greater the chance for corrosion of some or all of its parts;
5. There is not one piece of nature that can be pointed to and said to be evolution for a fact; all evolving objects can be shown to be changing for reasons other than evolution;
6. No missing links have been found where it can be proven that they are missing links; the few such supposed fossil links can be attributed to other things than evolution; such links can be situated on one big table they are so few, but there should be buildings full of them if evolution really happened.

Search and you will see that these and many other important facts against even the possibility of evolution are being ignored or talked around by evolutionists.

[popcorn1]

Look you know i am right so stop please ..

Lets just agree to disagree..

I say a science theory is not fact because they even use the word theory in the sentence ..

You are still being intentionally ignorant, so I'll clarify again

A fact is one piece a data... a theory is a collection of data... it could never be called the "fact of evolution" because there is more than 1 piece of data... the best it gets is the "theory of evolution"

I'm sorry you fail to understand the word theory in a scientific context... theory is the BEST it gets, it does not get any better... you cannot prove it more than theory... theory means it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt

There is zero debate whether scientific theory should be treated as fact or "just a hunch"... among scientists, anything called a theory can be relied upon to be an accurate description of reality... scientists will stake their life on a theory (and do so every day)... theory does not mean hypothesis... theory means it has been proven as well as possible given the entirety of information available to the planet... and zero people have come up with a justifiable reason to doubt the theory

So yes, a scientific theory is a reliable fact that explains the data and predicts future outcomes with 100% reliability... scientists do not debate this, because they all understand this simple concept

If a theory could not 100% reliably predict future outcomes, it would be downgraded to a hypothesis, and not called a theory

Scientists don't debate evolution because there isn't really anything to debate... It's a collection of facts from several different sciences leading to an obvious conclusion...

It fucking you ..

STUPID CUNT..A theory is not FACT  SO FUCK OFF CUNT..

STUPID FUCKERS..

lol, rofl, lmao

You mad bro?

You want to debate, or just call each other a cunt?

LMFAO

..Well did you all change science theory for me on this glorious day

You want to debate, or just call each other a cunt? BOTH .. Sorry if i offended you  <I mean that too but i don't mean too so sorry..

Your right in what you say ..I am wrong in the fact SCIENCE THEORY is fact in SCIENCE..

But why WHEN IT'S NOT  ..Land or sea misty rock or clouds ..

YOUR RIGHT i am WRONG..

I bricklayer So no scientist ..BUT i do wonder why when many theories just tuen out to be just THEORIES and not FACT..

But ok I LOST this DEBATE..You CUNT .. <JOKE by the way

[popcorn1]

People accepting things doesn't make fact.

Scientists only accept hypothesis when they are fully tested and become scientific theories. Their acceptance includes rigorous testing of the hypothesis BEFORE it is ever called a scientific theory.

What matters is what is truth.

A quick survey of what most people really prize, even in this thread, would disabuse us of that notion. Comfort rather than knowledge seems to be the currency.

God tells us truth about evolution in the Bible.

I won't argue about specifics of what God says or does not say, frankly religion shouldn't enter the debate at all. However, given that you and others have demonstrated a lack of understanding of not only what evolution actually is but also elementary science concepts how would you be able to discern anything God says as relating to evolution at all? If God is speaking about evolution in the bible how would you even understand it?

Evolution tells us truth right within the fact that it is theory - not known to be factual.

"Scientific theory" NOT "theory". Scientific theories are factual. They describe observed reality. They have been tested. They are fact not conjecture. The conjecture part of science is called the "hypothesis".

Science tells us truth in the fact that it shows evolution to be impossible.

I suspect your personal definition of "science" does not track with what the word actually means because otherwise your statement is flat out false.

It doesn't matter, badecker will simply ignore what you said. We already explained to him what a scientific theory means and he keeps saying the same shit over and over again as if only things that have the label ''fact'' on them are actually useful. You will not convince a religious extremist like badecker of anything, he can't critically think.

Science THEORY is only what scientist believe what theory mean BUT i still think they are wrong ..
But ok IT'S CALLED SCIENCE JARGON  .. But not the masses jargon 

I thinks it's about science jargon to baffle the public with lies ..SCIENCE THEORY ..Yes it's fact in science but not in my world ..
And i am sure many feel the same about getting science scammed with science jargon..


Theory is not fact

Posted by Sarah Salviander

Whenever someone even hints at a criticism of Darwinism or “climate change,” the True Believers come out of the woodwork to try to shame the heretics. You can always tell who they are, because they say things like “climate change is a fact” or “evolution is a fact the same way gravity is a fact.” The implication here is, you wouldn’t be so dumb as to deny the reality of gravity, would you, so why are you denying the reality of evolution or climate change?

But here the True Believer shows his blind faith, for with his inability to distinguish between fact and theory he exposes himself as someone whose understanding of how science works doesn’t even rise to the level of middle school. Another way to describe this sort of blind faith is science fetishism. As I told the anklebiting commenter to Surak’s article, we do not permit people to fetishize science here.

A fact is something we observe; for example, that objects in free fall accelerate toward the Earth’s center at a rate of 9.8 m/s2 or that the Moon orbits the Earth with an average orbital speed of 3700 km/s. There is no doubt of the fact that objects fall toward each other, because we see it and measure it all the time; this is what the science fetishist means when he says “gravity is a fact.” But what he apparently doesn’t realize is that gravity is a theory. Theories are not facts, they are models that attempt to make sense of the facts. And, as it turns out, there are several theories of gravity that attempt to make sense of what we know: Newton’s universal law of gravitation, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, modified Newtonian dynamics, and so on. And, as we all know from the various scientific revolutions that have taken place in the last several hundred years, no theory is invulnerable to being overturned by new and better evidence or new ways of thinking.

When a science fetishist leaps into a conversation to tell you that evolution is a fact, the first thing you should tell him is that you are fully aware of the fact that different lifeforms have emerged over the course of the Earth’s natural history and that lifeforms have been observed to change over relatively short periods of time. And then ask him which theory explains it — microevolution, macroevolution, speciation, microbial evolution, or chemical evolution — and why. At that point you will expose what Hugh Ross describes as the evolution shell game when fetishists argue about evolution, wherein he will either substitute the facts of fossils and other evidence for theory or well-established forms of evolution for those that are not at all supported.

As for climate change as “fact,” I can only surmise that our True Believer is not aware that scientists — including the famous hockey stick guy, himself — are now finally admitting that there has been no significant warming in the last two decades. It’s only a matter of time before the whole edifice of human-caused “climate change” collapses.

UPDATE: im2l844 asks in the comments:

Do you have a concise response to the “consensus” argument that is invariably trotted out by the AGW faithful?

Yes, there are two responses: who cares? and what consensus?

Who cares if there’s a consensus? Reality isn’t decided by a vote. There was a time when 97% of scientists thought the Earth was the center of the universe, so that tells you the value of consensus.

The reality is, there isn’t a consensus about global warming or climate change or whatever the True Believer wants to call it. The 97% statistic that is invariably trotted out is based on a very small number of scientists polled — just 77 — who met the criteria for a 2-minute survey as part of a student’s thesis. What the True Believer either doesn’t know or refuses to acknowledge is that over 31,000 scientists from an array of scientific fields have signed a petition stating they believe “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

[XinXan]

People accepting things doesn't make fact.

Scientists only accept hypothesis when they are fully tested and become scientific theories. Their acceptance includes rigorous testing of the hypothesis BEFORE it is ever called a scientific theory.

What matters is what is truth.

A quick survey of what most people really prize, even in this thread, would disabuse us of that notion. Comfort rather than knowledge seems to be the currency.

God tells us truth about evolution in the Bible.

I won't argue about specifics of what God says or does not say, frankly religion shouldn't enter the debate at all. However, given that you and others have demonstrated a lack of understanding of not only what evolution actually is but also elementary science concepts how would you be able to discern anything God says as relating to evolution at all? If God is speaking about evolution in the bible how would you even understand it?

Evolution tells us truth right within the fact that it is theory - not known to be factual.

"Scientific theory" NOT "theory". Scientific theories are factual. They describe observed reality. They have been tested. They are fact not conjecture. The conjecture part of science is called the "hypothesis".

Science tells us truth in the fact that it shows evolution to be impossible.

I suspect your personal definition of "science" does not track with what the word actually means because otherwise your statement is flat out false.

It doesn't matter, badecker will simply ignore what you said. We already explained to him what a scientific theory means and he keeps saying the same shit over and over again as if only things that have the label ''fact'' on them are actually useful. You will not convince a religious extremist like badecker of anything, he can't critically think.

Science THEORY is only what scientist believe what theory mean BUT i still think they are wrong ..
But ok IT'S CALLED SCIENCE JARGON  .. But not the masses jargon 

I thinks it's about science jargon to baffle the public with lies ..SCIENCE THEORY ..Yes it's fact in science but not in my world ..
And i am sure many feel the same about getting science scammed with science jargon..


Theory is not fact

Posted by Sarah Salviander

Whenever someone even hints at a criticism of Darwinism or “climate change,” the True Believers come out of the woodwork to try to shame the heretics. You can always tell who they are, because they say things like “climate change is a fact” or “evolution is a fact the same way gravity is a fact.” The implication here is, you wouldn’t be so dumb as to deny the reality of gravity, would you, so why are you denying the reality of evolution or climate change?

But here the True Believer shows his blind faith, for with his inability to distinguish between fact and theory he exposes himself as someone whose understanding of how science works doesn’t even rise to the level of middle school. Another way to describe this sort of blind faith is science fetishism. As I told the anklebiting commenter to Surak’s article, we do not permit people to fetishize science here.

A fact is something we observe; for example, that objects in free fall accelerate toward the Earth’s center at a rate of 9.8 m/s2 or that the Moon orbits the Earth with an average orbital speed of 3700 km/s. There is no doubt of the fact that objects fall toward each other, because we see it and measure it all the time; this is what the science fetishist means when he says “gravity is a fact.” But what he apparently doesn’t realize is that gravity is a theory. Theories are not facts, they are models that attempt to make sense of the facts. And, as it turns out, there are several theories of gravity that attempt to make sense of what we know: Newton’s universal law of gravitation, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, modified Newtonian dynamics, and so on. And, as we all know from the various scientific revolutions that have taken place in the last several hundred years, no theory is invulnerable to being overturned by new and better evidence or new ways of thinking.

When a science fetishist leaps into a conversation to tell you that evolution is a fact, the first thing you should tell him is that you are fully aware of the fact that different lifeforms have emerged over the course of the Earth’s natural history and that lifeforms have been observed to change over relatively short periods of time. And then ask him which theory explains it — microevolution, macroevolution, speciation, microbial evolution, or chemical evolution — and why. At that point you will expose what Hugh Ross describes as the evolution shell game when fetishists argue about evolution, wherein he will either substitute the facts of fossils and other evidence for theory or well-established forms of evolution for those that are not at all supported.

As for climate change as “fact,” I can only surmise that our True Believer is not aware that scientists — including the famous hockey stick guy, himself — are now finally admitting that there has been no significant warming in the last two decades. It’s only a matter of time before the whole edifice of human-caused “climate change” collapses.

UPDATE: im2l844 asks in the comments:

Do you have a concise response to the “consensus” argument that is invariably trotted out by the AGW faithful?

Yes, there are two responses: who cares? and what consensus?

Who cares if there’s a consensus? Reality isn’t decided by a vote. There was a time when 97% of scientists thought the Earth was the center of the universe, so that tells you the value of consensus.

The reality is, there isn’t a consensus about global warming or climate change or whatever the True Believer wants to call it. The 97% statistic that is invariably trotted out is based on a very small number of scientists polled — just 77 — who met the criteria for a 2-minute survey as part of a student’s thesis. What the True Believer either doesn’t know or refuses to acknowledge is that over 31,000 scientists from an array of scientific fields have signed a petition stating they believe “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

You realize that what you posted there acknowledges that evolution theory is true but there are parts of it that are unknown? So what you posted there is helping us more than you. You think the theory of evolution is something invented by scientists for whatever reason? If so how are scientists able to apply evolution theory to so many things and make them work. Like:

Wider biology
The evolutionary approach is key to much current research in biology that does not set out to study evolution per se, especially in organismal biology and ecology. For example, evolutionary thinking is key to life history theory. Annotation of genes and their function relies heavily on comparative, that is evolutionary, approaches. The field of evolutionary developmental biology investigates how developmental processes work by using the comparative method to determine how they evolved.

Antibiotic resistance can be a result of point mutations in the pathogen genome at a rate of about 1 in 108 per chromosomal replication. The antibiotic action against the pathogen can be seen as an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will result in a fully resistant colony.

Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders. For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves. This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation, such as crystallins and the melanocortin 1 receptor. Similarly, comparing the genome of the Antarctic icefish, which lacks red blood cells, to close relatives such as the Antarctic rockcod revealed genes needed to make these blood cells.

And even Computer science.

[popcorn1]

People accepting things doesn't make fact.

Scientists only accept hypothesis when they are fully tested and become scientific theories. Their acceptance includes rigorous testing of the hypothesis BEFORE it is ever called a scientific theory.

What matters is what is truth.

A quick survey of what most people really prize, even in this thread, would disabuse us of that notion. Comfort rather than knowledge seems to be the currency.

God tells us truth about evolution in the Bible.

I won't argue about specifics of what God says or does not say, frankly religion shouldn't enter the debate at all. However, given that you and others have demonstrated a lack of understanding of not only what evolution actually is but also elementary science concepts how would you be able to discern anything God says as relating to evolution at all? If God is speaking about evolution in the bible how would you even understand it?

Evolution tells us truth right within the fact that it is theory - not known to be factual.

"Scientific theory" NOT "theory". Scientific theories are factual. They describe observed reality. They have been tested. They are fact not conjecture. The conjecture part of science is called the "hypothesis".

Science tells us truth in the fact that it shows evolution to be impossible.

I suspect your personal definition of "science" does not track with what the word actually means because otherwise your statement is flat out false.

It doesn't matter, badecker will simply ignore what you said. We already explained to him what a scientific theory means and he keeps saying the same shit over and over again as if only things that have the label ''fact'' on them are actually useful. You will not convince a religious extremist like badecker of anything, he can't critically think.

Science THEORY is only what scientist believe what theory mean BUT i still think they are wrong ..
But ok IT'S CALLED SCIENCE JARGON  .. But not the masses jargon 

I thinks it's about science jargon to baffle the public with lies ..SCIENCE THEORY ..Yes it's fact in science but not in my world ..
And i am sure many feel the same about getting science scammed with science jargon..


Theory is not fact

Posted by Sarah Salviander

Whenever someone even hints at a criticism of Darwinism or “climate change,” the True Believers come out of the woodwork to try to shame the heretics. You can always tell who they are, because they say things like “climate change is a fact” or “evolution is a fact the same way gravity is a fact.” The implication here is, you wouldn’t be so dumb as to deny the reality of gravity, would you, so why are you denying the reality of evolution or climate change?

But here the True Believer shows his blind faith, for with his inability to distinguish between fact and theory he exposes himself as someone whose understanding of how science works doesn’t even rise to the level of middle school. Another way to describe this sort of blind faith is science fetishism. As I told the anklebiting commenter to Surak’s article, we do not permit people to fetishize science here.

A fact is something we observe; for example, that objects in free fall accelerate toward the Earth’s center at a rate of 9.8 m/s2 or that the Moon orbits the Earth with an average orbital speed of 3700 km/s. There is no doubt of the fact that objects fall toward each other, because we see it and measure it all the time; this is what the science fetishist means when he says “gravity is a fact.” But what he apparently doesn’t realize is that gravity is a theory. Theories are not facts, they are models that attempt to make sense of the facts. And, as it turns out, there are several theories of gravity that attempt to make sense of what we know: Newton’s universal law of gravitation, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, modified Newtonian dynamics, and so on. And, as we all know from the various scientific revolutions that have taken place in the last several hundred years, no theory is invulnerable to being overturned by new and better evidence or new ways of thinking.

When a science fetishist leaps into a conversation to tell you that evolution is a fact, the first thing you should tell him is that you are fully aware of the fact that different lifeforms have emerged over the course of the Earth’s natural history and that lifeforms have been observed to change over relatively short periods of time. And then ask him which theory explains it — microevolution, macroevolution, speciation, microbial evolution, or chemical evolution — and why. At that point you will expose what Hugh Ross describes as the evolution shell game when fetishists argue about evolution, wherein he will either substitute the facts of fossils and other evidence for theory or well-established forms of evolution for those that are not at all supported.

As for climate change as “fact,” I can only surmise that our True Believer is not aware that scientists — including the famous hockey stick guy, himself — are now finally admitting that there has been no significant warming in the last two decades. It’s only a matter of time before the whole edifice of human-caused “climate change” collapses.

UPDATE: im2l844 asks in the comments:

Do you have a concise response to the “consensus” argument that is invariably trotted out by the AGW faithful?

Yes, there are two responses: who cares? and what consensus?

Who cares if there’s a consensus? Reality isn’t decided by a vote. There was a time when 97% of scientists thought the Earth was the center of the universe, so that tells you the value of consensus.

The reality is, there isn’t a consensus about global warming or climate change or whatever the True Believer wants to call it. The 97% statistic that is invariably trotted out is based on a very small number of scientists polled — just 77 — who met the criteria for a 2-minute survey as part of a student’s thesis. What the True Believer either doesn’t know or refuses to acknowledge is that over 31,000 scientists from an array of scientific fields have signed a petition stating they believe “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

You realize that what you posted there acknowledges that evolution theory is true but there are parts of it that are unknown? So what you posted there is helping us more than you. You think the theory of evolution is something invented by scientists for whatever reason? If so how are scientists able to apply evolution theory to so many things and make them work. Like:

Wider biology
The evolutionary approach is key to much current research in biology that does not set out to study evolution per se, especially in organismal biology and ecology. For example, evolutionary thinking is key to life history theory. Annotation of genes and their function relies heavily on comparative, that is evolutionary, approaches. The field of evolutionary developmental biology investigates how developmental processes work by using the comparative method to determine how they evolved.

Antibiotic resistance can be a result of point mutations in the pathogen genome at a rate of about 1 in 108 per chromosomal replication. The antibiotic action against the pathogen can be seen as an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will result in a fully resistant colony.

Understanding the changes that have occurred during organism's evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders. For example, the Mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves. This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation, such as crystallins and the melanocortin 1 receptor. Similarly, comparing the genome of the Antarctic icefish, which lacks red blood cells, to close relatives such as the Antarctic rockcod revealed genes needed to make these blood cells.

And even Computer science.

You do realise i don't deny EVOLUTION  ..So please stop THANK YOU ..

We have EVOLVED and that's a FACT,,Created by the EARTH not GODS ..

Now lets DO LOTS OF SCIENCE not lots of RELIGION lots of SCIENCE and we can fly around the universe  ..

What you missed my friend is we got onto the word THEORY and it's meaning in SCIENCE ..

But 100% life evolved ..We started at 1 point in time and then life SPREAD how is what we are still THEORISING  ..

But you would agree that a man like being never went zap and everything was so..I.E a SKY DADDY..Oh and all this in 6 DAYS..

And that's one reason why we have EVOLUTION THEORY because we know a man cannot make everything in 6 DAYS..

So STOP RIGHT NOW PLEASE ..Evolution is FACT..We have EVOLVED..BUT HOW is the BIG QUESTION..And it wasn't GODS..