Evolution is a hoax

[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.

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..

I know that you are dedicated to your evolution religion. But it's about time that you figure out that it IS a religion.

Just think for a minute. The only reason you believe in evolution is because somebody else told you that it is true. You haven't calculated it all out for yourself, right?

Back in the Middle and Dark Ages, people believed the earth was flat, because the Church told it to them, and they didn't know any better. Was the Church telling the truth? NO! Flat earth was and is a hoax.

Was the Church completely wrong in everything it did? No! There are plenty of times that it helped people and sought out truth.

Same with science. Science has truthfully found that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. But they also know that evolution is a hoax. They are like the Church. They are making money off people believing in their hoax evolution religion.

And you are an evolution believer just like those jokers over in the "Flat Earth" thread are believers in flat earth.

[1714780749]

1714780749

[1714780749]

1714780749

[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.

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..

I know that you are dedicated to your evolution religion. But it's about time that you figure out that it IS a religion.

Just think for a minute. The only reason you believe in evolution is because somebody else told you that it is true. You haven't calculated it all out for yourself, right?

Back in the Middle and Dark Ages, people believed the earth was flat, because the Church told it to them, and they didn't know any better. Was the Church telling the truth? NO! Flat earth was and is a hoax.

Was the Church completely wrong in everything it did? No! There are plenty of times that it helped people and sought out truth.

Same with science. Science has truthfully found that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. But they also know that evolution is a hoax. They are like the Church. They are making money off people believing in their hoax evolution religion.

And you are an evolution believer just like those jokers over in the "Flat Earth" thread are believers in flat earth.

You have already been told what religion means but your bean brain can't seem to understand it. 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 is not about ethics or morals, it doesn't tell you what to do. It's just an explanation of nature, of course you won't understand this because your brain is not capable of it.

Oh, yes. That's right. You are so good. The dictionary has told me what religion means. From Dictionary.com

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion:
a religion to one's vow.

Did you notice #6 in the definition? I don't mean that the others don't necessarily fit the evolution religion. But #6 fits it nicely.

If evolution were at all truthful, it might barely slip out from under being a religion. But as I have shown you over and over, evolution is fake. It only exists in the minds of those who desire to believe in it. Evolution... a classic example of religion.

[popcorn1]

XinXan sorry blamed you when it was BADECKER ..Sorry 

[BADecker]

XinXan sorry blamed you when it was BADECKER ..Sorry 

Good job of repentance, man. You're not excommunicated from the evolution church after all.

 

[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..

I know that you are dedicated to your evolution religion. But it's about time that you figure out that it IS a religion.

Just think for a minute. The only reason you believe in evolution is because somebody else told you that it is true. You haven't calculated it all out for yourself, right?

Back in the Middle and Dark Ages, people believed the earth was flat, because the Church told it to them, and they didn't know any better. Was the Church telling the truth? NO! Flat earth was and is a hoax.

Was the Church completely wrong in everything it did? No! There are plenty of times that it helped people and sought out truth.

Same with science. Science has truthfully found that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. But they also know that evolution is a hoax. They are like the Church. They are making money off people believing in their hoax evolution religion.

And you are an evolution believer just like those jokers over in the "Flat Earth" thread are believers in flat earth.

You have already been told what religion means but your bean brain can't seem to understand it. 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 is not about ethics or morals, it doesn't tell you what to do. It's just an explanation of nature, of course you won't understand this because your brain is not capable of it.

Oh, yes. That's right. You are so good. The dictionary has told me what religion means. From Dictionary.com

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion:
a religion to one's vow.

Did you notice #6 in the definition? I don't mean that the others don't necessarily fit the evolution religion. But #6 fits it nicely.

If evolution were at all truthful, it might barely slip out from under being a religion. But as I have shown you over and over, evolution is fake. It only exists in the minds of those who desire to believe in it. Evolution... a classic example of religion.

I watch loads of documentaries about nature and i lived by woods and farms and went to the beach BUT when i go the beach I have this thing about picking up shells and nice colour rocks

Smooth ones marble looking ones so when i get home i end up with a pocket full of shells and rocks

Yes i end up throwing them away but i get a interest by the colour and the smoothness
and the different shapes of the shells ..

Now by all this I KNOW FOR FACT ..YES FACT  ..That this planet never got made by a man like being that went ZAP and made this planet and all in it in 6 days AND 6000 years ago
I know it's been going way longer..

So Evolution is FACT Badecker ..

You must BE SO STUPID to believe a SKY DADDY MADE all this in 6 DAYS..

CRAZY to be honest   ..

Look around you the EARTH is way older than 6000 YEARS

[popcorn1]

XinXan sorry blamed you when it was BADECKER ..Sorry 

Good job of repentance, man. You're not excommunicated from the evolution church after all.

 

But at least i will admit when i am WRONG you DON'T ..

So you will burn in hell It's a joke no such thing

[BADecker]

XinXan sorry blamed you when it was BADECKER ..Sorry 

Good job of repentance, man. You're not excommunicated from the evolution church after all.

 

But at least i will admit when i am WRONG you DON'T ..

So you will burn in hell It's a joke no such thing

But mostly there is no evolution in the sense that evolutionists talk about it:

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]

OK Badecker you believe what you want to believe  ..

I give up ..
And i give up on that a science theory is fact EVEN though it's not

We come from a single point what don't you get about coming from a single point in time?..

Rewind our solar system and you would see we come from a single point..

Now the point is we come from a single point means we evolved from that single point ..

Stick a banger in dog shit and when it explodes the dog shit spreads everywhere
but you knew from the beginning what point the dog shit started from..

Well imagine the big bag like one big DOG SHIT with a banger in it ..

Now over time the DOG SHIT grew creatures on it where and how is still getting theorised
but we know we come from a single point because the universe is expanding with stars and planets..

I.E EXPLODING DOG SHIT spreading everywhere after the banger goes BANG..

Now does that explain it any better ..

Now i have had enough now about this subject I AM DONE no more thanks ..

You just believe in FAIRY TALES i will believe in fact and TRUTH..

Show me and i will believe..
Same with science..PROVE IT..

[BADecker]

OK Badecker you believe what you want to believe  ..

I give up ..
And i give up on that a science theory is fact EVEN though it's not

We come from a single point what don't you get about coming from a single point in time?..

Rewind our solar system and you would see we come from a single point..

Now the point is we come from a single point means we evolved from that single point ..

That's the point. You don't know that we came from a single point. You have no proof for it. Nobody does. The best of their ideas and theories have too many holes and potential holes to know that we came from a single point, or that it was an evolution thing.

Stick a banger in dog shit and when it explodes the dog shit spreads everywhere
but you knew from the beginning what point the dog shit started from..

Well imagine the big bag like one big DOG SHIT with a banger in it ..

Now over time the DOG SHIT grew creatures on it where and how is still getting theorised
but we know we come from a single point because the universe is expanding with stars and planets..

I.E EXPLODING DOG SHIT spreading everywhere after the banger goes BANG..

Now does that explain it any better ..

That explains dog shit. But why do you suggest big bang or something like it when you don't know? How do you know? Were you there? Do you have a time viewer? Don't you simoply think like you do because you want to, or because somebody else convinced you to think like that?

Now i have had enough now about this subject I AM DONE no more thanks ..

You just believe in FAIRY TALES i will believe in fact and TRUTH..

Show me and i will believe..
Same with science..PROVE IT..

Your evolution fairy tale is kinda enough for me. When you spread it without knowing why it might exist that way, you are spreading a hoax. The evolution hoax.

You certainly are welcome to believe your religion. But that is all that evolution is for you or anybody.

[popcorn1]

OK Badecker you believe what you want to believe  ..

I give up ..
And i give up on that a science theory is fact EVEN though it's not

We come from a single point what don't you get about coming from a single point in time?..

Rewind our solar system and you would see we come from a single point..

Now the point is we come from a single point means we evolved from that single point ..

That's the point. You don't know that we came from a single point. You have no proof for it. Nobody does. The best of their ideas and theories have too many holes and potential holes to know that we came from a single point, or that it was an evolution thing.

Stick a banger in dog shit and when it explodes the dog shit spreads everywhere
but you knew from the beginning what point the dog shit started from..

Well imagine the big bag like one big DOG SHIT with a banger in it ..

Now over time the DOG SHIT grew creatures on it where and how is still getting theorised
but we know we come from a single point because the universe is expanding with stars and planets..

I.E EXPLODING DOG SHIT spreading everywhere after the banger goes BANG..

Now does that explain it any better ..

That explains dog shit. But why do you suggest big bang or something like it when you don't know? How do you know? Were you there? Do you have a time viewer? Don't you simoply think like you do because you want to, or because somebody else convinced you to think like that?

Now i have had enough now about this subject I AM DONE no more thanks ..

You just believe in FAIRY TALES i will believe in fact and TRUTH..

Show me and i will believe..
Same with science..PROVE IT..

Your evolution fairy tale is kinda enough for me. When you spread it without knowing why it might exist that way, you are spreading a hoax. The evolution hoax.

You certainly are welcome to believe your religion. But that is all that evolution is for you or anybody.

Your evolution fairy tale is kinda enough for me.
Last time because i need to ask you this QUESTION..

Do you want to know how we come to be ?
How life started how we become to be who we are ?..

Well that's the QUESTION how did we evolve Which means EVOLUTION THEORIES..

We theorise how we come to be..

And we do know the we are expanding I.E spreading out..
Go and buy a telescope and look at the universe ..

You can observed galaxies moving away from Earth.
NOT A LIE you can see it with your own eyes..
Fact the farther away a galaxy is the faster it is moving away from us..

So now you know for fact we are spreading out and expanding into the vastness of the universe..

Now good luck with your god because all the oh god oh god will not help you in anyway what so ever..

But if you think it does then GOOD LUCK to you ..

[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.

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..

I know that you are dedicated to your evolution religion. But it's about time that you figure out that it IS a religion.

Just think for a minute. The only reason you believe in evolution is because somebody else told you that it is true. You haven't calculated it all out for yourself, right?

Back in the Middle and Dark Ages, people believed the earth was flat, because the Church told it to them, and they didn't know any better. Was the Church telling the truth? NO! Flat earth was and is a hoax.

Was the Church completely wrong in everything it did? No! There are plenty of times that it helped people and sought out truth.

Same with science. Science has truthfully found that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. But they also know that evolution is a hoax. They are like the Church. They are making money off people believing in their hoax evolution religion.

And you are an evolution believer just like those jokers over in the "Flat Earth" thread are believers in flat earth.

You have already been told what religion means but your bean brain can't seem to understand it. 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 is not about ethics or morals, it doesn't tell you what to do. It's just an explanation of nature, of course you won't understand this because your brain is not capable of it.

Oh, yes. That's right. You are so good. The dictionary has told me what religion means. From Dictionary.com

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion:
a religion to one's vow.

Did you notice #6 in the definition? I don't mean that the others don't necessarily fit the evolution religion. But #6 fits it nicely.

If evolution were at all truthful, it might barely slip out from under being a religion. But as I have shown you over and over, evolution is fake. It only exists in the minds of those who desire to believe in it. Evolution... a classic example of religion.

Ethics or conscience has nothing to do with evolution tho. No one ''believes'' in evolution like you believe in the Bible, scientists support evolution because there is evidence for it, they don't just simply believe it like religious people do, get your shit together lol.

[BADecker]

Oh, yes. That's right. You are so good. The dictionary has told me what religion means. From Dictionary.com

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion:
a religion to one's vow.

Did you notice #6 in the definition? I don't mean that the others don't necessarily fit the evolution religion. But #6 fits it nicely.

If evolution were at all truthful, it might barely slip out from under being a religion. But as I have shown you over and over, evolution is fake. It only exists in the minds of those who desire to believe in it. Evolution... a classic example of religion.

Ethics or conscience has nothing to do with evolution tho. No one ''believes'' in evolution like you believe in the Bible, scientists support evolution because there is evidence for it, they don't just simply believe it like religious people do, get your shit together lol.

In very simple terms, evolution works like this. Scientists have examined at the world around us. They have invented a story about a certain way that things in nature fit together. They have called their story evolution.

Their story fits together quite well. But, there are two basic areas that they are leaving out, to keep their evolution story strong. These are:
1. Everything in the evolution story can be applied to other things. The things of evolution can be explained as parts of at least one other story that is not evolution;
2. Evolution people have ignored or inappropriately talked away the things that show that their evolution story is impossible.

Evolution is a hoax, designed by scientific people who need to dazzle the general public, so that they can make money off them. That's evolution in a nutshell.

[Astargath]

Oh, yes. That's right. You are so good. The dictionary has told me what religion means. From Dictionary.com

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion:
a religion to one's vow.

Did you notice #6 in the definition? I don't mean that the others don't necessarily fit the evolution religion. But #6 fits it nicely.

If evolution were at all truthful, it might barely slip out from under being a religion. But as I have shown you over and over, evolution is fake. It only exists in the minds of those who desire to believe in it. Evolution... a classic example of religion.

Ethics or conscience has nothing to do with evolution tho. No one ''believes'' in evolution like you believe in the Bible, scientists support evolution because there is evidence for it, they don't just simply believe it like religious people do, get your shit together lol.

In very simple terms, evolution works like this. Scientists have examined at the world around us. They have invented a story about a certain way that things in nature fit together. They have called their story evolution.

Their story fits together quite well. But, there are two basic areas that they are leaving out, to keep their evolution story strong. These are:
1. Everything in the evolution story can be applied to other things. The things of evolution can be explained as parts of at least one other story that is not evolution;
2. Evolution people have ignored or inappropriately talked away the things that show that their evolution story is impossible.

Evolution is a hoax, designed by scientific people who need to dazzle the general public, so that they can make money off them. That's evolution in a nutshell.

No, darwin looked around the world and tried to explain it, now the science back then wasn't as advanced as it is today and he didn't really have many tools to test it, however now, we do have the tools to test it thanks to many different sciences like biology, genetics, etc etc which all show that evolution is real.

[BADecker]

Oh, yes. That's right. You are so good. The dictionary has told me what religion means. From Dictionary.com

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion:
a religion to one's vow.

Did you notice #6 in the definition? I don't mean that the others don't necessarily fit the evolution religion. But #6 fits it nicely.

If evolution were at all truthful, it might barely slip out from under being a religion. But as I have shown you over and over, evolution is fake. It only exists in the minds of those who desire to believe in it. Evolution... a classic example of religion.

Ethics or conscience has nothing to do with evolution tho. No one ''believes'' in evolution like you believe in the Bible, scientists support evolution because there is evidence for it, they don't just simply believe it like religious people do, get your shit together lol.

In very simple terms, evolution works like this. Scientists have examined at the world around us. They have invented a story about a certain way that things in nature fit together. They have called their story evolution.

Their story fits together quite well. But, there are two basic areas that they are leaving out, to keep their evolution story strong. These are:
1. Everything in the evolution story can be applied to other things. The things of evolution can be explained as parts of at least one other story that is not evolution;
2. Evolution people have ignored or inappropriately talked away the things that show that their evolution story is impossible.

Evolution is a hoax, designed by scientific people who need to dazzle the general public, so that they can make money off them. That's evolution in a nutshell.

No, darwin looked around the world and tried to explain it, now the science back then wasn't as advanced as it is today and he didn't really have many tools to test it, however now, we do have the tools to test it thanks to many different sciences like biology, genetics, etc etc which all show that evolution is real.

"No" what? We hadn't been talking about Darwin. Science starting with Darwin (and actually before) thought there was evidence for evolution. Sure they weren't advanced back then as we are. But science has proven evolution impossible the more science looks at it.

It's as I said in my previous post 1 and 2. We found out what Darwin had a difficult time in determining... that evolution is impossible in the real world.

Evolution is just another big hoax.

[Moloch]

It's a good thing the "Theory of Gravity" is just a guess, and it isn't useful for any calculations or predicting future events...

If only Gravity wasn't a "just a theory"... we might send a rocket to the moon... damn shame it's only a Theory of Gravity (BAZINGA!)

Theory means it is proven to be reliable, useful, predictable of future events, and has stood the test of time against any opposition (like BADlogic)

It literally doesn't get better than Theory of Gravity or Theory of Evolution... a scientific theory can be used as if it were a fact, and all your calculations and predictions will work 100% of the time (if they didn't work 100% of the time, it would be downgraded to a hypothesis, or scrapped as just plain wrong... a theory means it is correct and works)

Unlike religion, science can admit to being wrong... if it were wrong, it would correct the mistake, and formulate a better working model

The Theory of Evolution is the current best working model, and it has been proven correct, reliable, and predictive of the future...

If you think you can come up with a better model to fit the evidence, by all means try... but crying because you don't agree with facts is just childish

[ridery99]

Unlike religion, science can admit to being wrong... if it were wrong, it would correct the mistake, and formulate a better working model

That's why evolution is not science, they can't admit it's just a creation of imagination.

[popcorn1]

It's a good thing the "Theory of Gravity" is just a guess, and it isn't useful for any calculations or predicting future events...

If only Gravity wasn't a "just a theory"... we might send a rocket to the moon... damn shame it's only a Theory of Gravity (BAZINGA!)

Theory means it is proven to be reliable, useful, predictable of future events, and has stood the test of time against any opposition (like BADlogic)

It literally doesn't get better than Theory of Gravity or Theory of Evolution... a scientific theory can be used as if it were a fact, and all your calculations and predictions will work 100% of the time (if they didn't work 100% of the time, it would be downgraded to a hypothesis, or scrapped as just plain wrong... a theory means it is correct and works)

Unlike religion, science can admit to being wrong... if it were wrong, it would correct the mistake, and formulate a better working model

The Theory of Evolution is the current best working model, and it has been proven correct, reliable, and predictive of the future...

If you think you can come up with a better model to fit the evidence, by all means try... but crying because you don't agree with facts is just childish

a scientific theory can be used as if it were a fact, and all your calculations and predictions will work 100% of the time[/b] (if they didn't work 100% of the time, it would be downgraded to a hypothesis, or scrapped as just plain wrong..


 would be downgraded to a hypothesis, or scrapped as just plain wrong..SO WHO IS RIGHT?..

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,

3 calculations now someone MUST BE WRONG?..<would be downgraded to a hypothesis, or scrapped as just plain wrong.

So that means 2 will be threw in the BIN          but is it 100% accurate NOT EVEN CLOSE..

Now what about this if it's all been calculated who is wrong HERE?..

which theory explains it — microevolution, macroevolution, speciation, microbial evolution, or chemical evolution..

Now if only one turns out to be true or none 5 different fields have been studying LIES..
But good thing about studying things always fall onto something by ACCIDENT which turn out to be FACT and not a theory..


But ok your right BUT I STILL thinks your wrong..Why because it hurts my mind..

calculations are not THEORIES if using math to do the calculations they be fact..

imagine you think of an explosion that could happen somewhere anywhere so you do the maths

it explodes 20 meters away so you do the MATH then you come up with factual calculations which you think is true..
The math might be right BUT your guess where the eplosion might be totally wrong and might not even be an explosion..

So now the maths is wrong even though the calculations are right it's all still wrong..

But you say what you say About science theory and it says your right BUT i still thinks your all wrong..

[popcorn1]

If you think you can come up with a better model to fit the evidence, by all means try..                OK I WILL HAVE A GO my friend..
Let me know what you thinks ..

Use the 2 words together SCIENCE THEORY and SCIENCE FACT..

We use science theories to come up with science facts and then we use science facts to come up with science theories..

Now if i ask you what have you discovered you would say we have some scientific facts and me the average joe would thinks oh they have discovered something that's real ..

Now if you said to me i have discovered a scientific theory i would think well he as come up with an idea a guess on something that needs more
studying..

Now why i say this is because imagine you want funding and you said i have a scientific fact i would think well he must have something that's real
and i can see touch smell hear and taste it so yes i will fund this project..

Now when you say it's a theory i can say well he just guessing and using scientific facts and maths but it not real yet so i will wait and not fund this project yet until proven to be a fact what he guesses or a hunch..


Now the trouble with today is many many SCIENTIST are using the word science theory to say the work they do is FACT when really they are scamming the people out of money to get funds..

Oh yes i got a science theory BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ...Oh is it true ..OH YES it's a science theory so it's 100% fact..

So i say use the 2 meanings SCIENCE FACT and SCIENCE THEORY..

Oh i got a science theory and i ended up with a science fact..

Like evolution is science fact..

Because 100% we evolved from this planet so now we know we evolved EVOLUTION becomes science fact..

So now we use science fact I.E evolution to come up with science theories about evolution..

Then you can so no that's science fact or no that's just a science theory..

And then we will know what is actual fact and not a theory..I.E REAL ..


I REST MY CASE..

[BADecker]

It's a good thing the "Theory of Gravity" is just a guess, and it isn't useful for any calculations or predicting future events...

If only Gravity wasn't a "just a theory"... we might send a rocket to the moon... damn shame it's only a Theory of Gravity (BAZINGA!)

Theory means it is proven to be reliable, useful, predictable of future events, and has stood the test of time against any opposition (like BADlogic)

It literally doesn't get better than Theory of Gravity or Theory of Evolution... a scientific theory can be used as if it were a fact, and all your calculations and predictions will work 100% of the time (if they didn't work 100% of the time, it would be downgraded to a hypothesis, or scrapped as just plain wrong... a theory means it is correct and works)

Unlike religion, science can admit to being wrong... if it were wrong, it would correct the mistake, and formulate a better working model

The Theory of Evolution is the current best working model, and it has been proven correct, reliable, and predictive of the future...

If you think you can come up with a better model to fit the evidence, by all means try... but crying because you don't agree with facts is just childish

However, science theories are not known to be all-inclusive in their fields. That means that even though the theories work, that there are additional aspects of the nature and reality that the theories don't talk about, that actually fall into the classification of things the theory is talking about. If these were examined, they might even destroy the whole theory for a different one. That's part of the reason why theories are still theories.

In addition, just because an engineer applies a theory to the job, doesn't mean he is applying the job to the theory. The theory may have good points that the engineer finds don't quite work practically enough to make his project work. So he tweaks his project to make it work. The theory was a good start-point. But the theory has actually failed, even though the engineer instinctively does his project tweaking without at all tweaking the theory.

[IGNation]

That is also my question about evolution of man that's why i don't believe it actually not just the evolution everything i believe more on religion explanation than scientific explanation about creation and evolution.