Evolution; Theory or Fact

Joshua wrote:

How many times do I have to tell you life being here is not evidance of anything. It is a fact. Evolution is a theory that tries to explain that fact. Creationism is another postulate for why we are here. Evolution is not a fact it is a theory. Unlike gravity, the earth, us being here, and so many other facts of reality, evolution (macro) is just a theory. Evolution is E Plurabus Unum of the many postulutes of how we are here today. A fact is something we can all agree on.

You are (still) incorrect, despite this being explained to you now NUMEROUS times over.

Life simply being here is NOT evidence of evolution. That IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN our claim. It's the specific characteristics that life has that is explained by evolution, and no other theory, since no other scientific theory has been put forward. Evolution works (scientifically), nothing else does.

Joshua wrote:

Around 10 percent of America beileves in Evolution it does not appear that we all agree upon the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is not a fact. It is just another theory hence the name.

You are still incorrect, evolution and creationism are accepted roughly 50/50 in the US. However none of that matters, since even if 100% of the US believed in a flat Earth like the Bible says, 100% of the US would still be wrong.

Joshua wrote:

Unless some new evidance has that clearly show that macro evolution is a fact, macro evolution is a theory.

Evolution - change in allele frequencies over time. Fact. The theory of evolution explains it. Nothing else does.

Hey Josh - not only have you ignored the criticisms of the Bible, you have ignored the rebuttals of your complaints about evolution.

Why is that?

Or shall we just skip the BS and just say you don't believe in evolution cuz the Bible sez Goddidit with magic and f ck the evidence?

The reason I do not beileive in evolution is becuase the flaws of evolution are so overwhelming that it would be like beileving the sky is falling.
You talk about flaws in the bible but anytime I introduce a flaw in your theory you dismiss it as a creationist lie.

Joshua wrote:

Is evolution (macro) a theory or a fact? Evolutionist will treat it as fact, but then it is the "theory of evolution". If indeed it is a fact why is it called a theory? If it is a theory why is it called a fact? Some will say it is not treated as a fact, but if it is not a fact why do they teach it as a fact in public schools? A fact is something that is undeniably true. People may debate about it but to a clear thinking man it is obvious that it is true. Evolution is not undeniably true. There have been problems posed that cannot be unexplained away. Such as blood cells found in fossiles "millions of years old. Or carvings that show accurate reprentations of dinasaurs. There are alternate theory as to how life came to exist. Such as Buddism, Christianity, Islam. Evolution is not undeniably true therefore evolution is not a fact. It may be true but it is not the only option to a clear thinking man. So we have established then that evolution is not a fact. So evolution then must be a theory. If evolution is not a fact then why is it portrayed as such?

Because the laws of science have been rewritten by the evolutionists. A theory is now described as a set of principlesdevised to explain a group of facts OR SOMETHING that is "widely accepted" to be the truth. So based on this screwed up "law", anything evolutionists say can be construed as FACT! How convenient! This is, of course, NOT TRUE, as science as I learned it was that a theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena that has been tested repeatedly and turns out conclusive FACTS! This is how the evolutionists are making their case as fact, when it is NOT fact!!

I would also like to say that evolutionists SAY that their way of scientific thinking is "widely accepted" as truth. This is one of the biggest LIES! Scientists like me who are not beholden to a University because of tenure, or not beholden to the government do not have to worry about losing our jobs or grant money because we speak out & say what many scientists WANT to say: That evolution is not a proven fact, that evolution has serious flaws in it, and that like me, you don't have to be a "creationists" to see that the science doesn't line up for Darwin's teachings, on the Big Bang, nor evolution.

Joshua wrote:

The reason I do not beileive in evolution is becuase the flaws of evolution are so overwhelming that it would be like beileving the sky is falling.
You talk about flaws in the bible but anytime I introduce a flaw in your theory you dismiss it as a creationist lie.

No, that's what Lutz does (see below). We ADDRESS your alleged "flaws" and point out WHY they're wrong and why your understanding of the concept is wrong. Only problem is that you don't even understand what I'm saying, as all you're able to do is repeat BS from fundie websites without understanding what they're saying either. But it don't matter, as long as they say the right soundbites.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Except it's NOT the fact that life is here that is evidence for evolution. It's the specific characteristics that life has that's evidence of evolution.
None of it is evidence for God, since God could have done things completely differently, and you would still say Goddidit. It's because evolution makes successful predictions based on observable evidence while creationism does not.

A prediction is NOT evidence. Where did you go to school? Dollar General??

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
No, that's what Lutz does (see below). We ADDRESS your alleged "flaws" and point out WHY they're wrong and why your understanding of the concept is wrong. Only problem is that you don't even understand what I'm saying, as all you're able to do is repeat BS from fundie websites without understanding what they're saying either. But it don't matter, as long as they say the right soundbites.

I understand completely, and I'm tired of the Darwinists thinking they can MANUFACTURE facts! You have not given any credible facts. You can attack us all you want, but your theory as fact still doesn't hold water. Because you don't have to be a "fundie" to understand the difference in credible facts and BS!

Jochen Lutz wrote:

I would also like to say that evolutionists SAY that their way of scientific thinking is "widely accepted" as truth. This is one of the biggest LIES! Scientists like me who are not beholden to a University because of tenure, or not beholden to the government do not have to worry about losing our jobs or grant money because we speak out & say what many scientists WANT to say: That evolution is not a proven fact, that evolution has serious flaws in it, and that like me, you don't have to be a "creationists" to see that the science doesn't line up for Darwin's teachings, on the Big Bang, nor evolution.

Let's get one "FACT" straight.

You are *NOT* a "Scientist".
You do *NOT* have a PhD.
You do *NOT* have any serious science training (say, beyond High School).

You have repeatedly demonstrated are woefully ignorant of science in every way.

But just to amuse us: If the Theory of Evolution is so wrong, what would a "Microbiologist-PhD" (snicker) such as yourself (cough-cough-BULLSHIT-cough-co ugh) say is the CORRECT science that would describe the diversity of life on earth IN PLACE of the ToE?

Jochen Lutz wrote:

<quoted text> A prediction is NOT evidence. Where did you go to school? Dollar General??

No. Predictions are MADE from evidence. You have some evidence, you form a hypothesis around it and that hypothesis makes a prediction. That hypothesis is then confirmed by successfully making a prediction by testing it using the scientific method.

I never said the prediction itself was evidence. It's a confirmation that the theory works.

Once again I thank you for demonstrating that you are a bald-faced liar for claiming you had a PhD in molecular biology. So where ARE you going to school?

P.s. You STILL haven't been able to address the evidence for evolution I posted on the other thread well over a week ago.

<<edit for my above post>>

Let's get one "FACT" straight.

<<SHOULD read>>

"Let's get a few "FACTS" straight."

Let me getone fact straight. Just becuase I am not a evolutionary scientists and I think that macro evolution is stupid does not mean that my opinion is invaladaited. Or you a Ph.D. bearisng scientist. I didn't think so. Why is it that becuase I am not a scientist everything I say is dismissed as fundie rambeleings? But whatever YOU say is true becuase you are a evolutionist.

Kong get a new act.

Sorry typo first sentence "Let me get one fact straight"

Here is a list detailing the major mistakes in evolution.
1. It's not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation.
2. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don't have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences, not philosophical wannabes trying to appear legit.
3. Complex engineering. Do you ever drive past a skyscraper and think to yourself 'Gee, I guess billions of years of random chance could have just as easily assembled all of that glass, steel and concrete as well as a team of engineers, architects, construction workers working from blueprints? Of course not! But that's what evolutionists would have you believe in when it comes to living organisms.
4. Genetics. The programming code of life, according to evolutionists, is just a series of biochemical accidents and mutations. If you believe this, I have a bridge in New York that's for sale. The infinitely complex engineering of this code means that it did not come about via 'natural selection,' aka random chance.
5. Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.
6. Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.
7. Racism. This is the ugly secret that evolutionists don't want to discuss; that Darwin, Huxley and many of the early advocates of evolution stated publicly that Asians, Africans, Australian Aborigines and other non-white, non-European groups were evolutionary throwbacks. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was a pioneer in the early field of eugenics which was the study of skills by ethnic groups. While Galton's work was relatively harmless, Hitler's work -- to synthesize natural selection by exterminating a race of people -- was not.
More info at http://www.evofraud.com
I found this artical on this site.
Before you say it is wrong read. Do not say it is wrong just becuase it is a creationist lie. If it is a creationist lie say why.

Sorry it repeatedly posted. Silly PC

Joshua wrote:

<quoted text>Let me getone fact straight. Just becuase I am not a evolutionary scientists and I think that macro evolution is stupid does not mean that my opinion is invaladaited.

Not "invalidaited" (sic), just irrelevant. What you "THINK" about macro evolution does not matter to all the professionals in the field that know, understand, accept, and USE the Theory of Evolution in day-to-day practice.

Whether or not YOU accept the findings of science bears no difference to the reality that is evident.

Joshua wrote:

<quoted text> Or you a Ph.D. bearisng scientist. I didn't think so.

I've never claimed to be a PhD "bearisng" (sic) scientist. But "Lutz" did, and continues to claim credentials that he obviously is LYING about.

Uh.....YOU'RE not also "Lutz", are you?

Joshua wrote:

<quoted text>Why is it that becuase I am not a scientist everything I say is dismissed as fundie rambeleings?.

Perhaps because you make claims that you have no evidence for.

Joshua wrote:

<quoted text>But whatever YOU say is true becuase you are a evolutionist.

Challenge me on one of my posts. I'll back up what I say with evidence.

Go for it.

Joshua wrote:

<quoted text>
Kong get a new act.

Me?

Nah.

I prefer reality.

Whos Lutz?

Joshua wrote:

Whos Lutz?

"Jochen Lutz".

Quite a few posts on this thread.

Joshua wrote:

Here is a list detailing the major mistakes in evolution.
1. It's not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation.
2. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don't have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences, not philosophical wannabes trying to appear legit.

...

Before you say it is wrong read. Do not say it is wrong just becuase it is a creationist lie. If it is a creationist lie say why.

I'll be tackling this in small pieces.

(1). Not only is it "science", it is VERY GOOD science. We know more about Evolution than we do about Gravity. We do not "observe, test and repeat" the actual EVENT of speciation (changing of one species into another), we observe, test and repeat (tests) on the EVIDENCE left behing that shows us that speciation DID, in fact...occur.
Evolution meets ALL the criteria of the Scientific method.

(2). Chemestry and Physics both CONFIRM the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution itself is the CORNERSTONE for the entire science of Biology. So this claim "...it devalues real science" is silly. Legitimacy is no problem for the ToE, as it poses NO philosophical claims whatsoever.

Joshua wrote:

Here is a list detailing the major mistakes in evolution.
3. Complex engineering. Do you ever drive past a skyscraper and think to yourself 'Gee, I guess billions of years of random chance could have just as easily assembled all of that glass, steel and concrete as well as a team of engineers, architects, construction workers working from blueprints? Of course not! But that's what evolutionists would have you believe in when it comes to living organisms.
4. Genetics. The programming code of life, according to evolutionists, is just a series of biochemical accidents and mutations. If you believe this, I have a bridge in New York that's for sale. The infinitely complex engineering of this code means that it did not come about via 'natural selection,' aka random chance.

(3) "Complex Engineering" Your analogy of the skyscraper does not work. Should inanimate objects (such as buildings) begin to sexually reproduce, call me. Otherwise, this is just an argument from incredulity.

(4) "Genetics" Per Talk Origins:
" http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_1... ;

There is more to evolution than mutation. A small percentage of mutations are beneficial, and selection can cause the beneficial mutations to persist and the harmful mutations to die off. The combination of mutation and selection can create new useful adaptations.

Sometimes things do get built by accident. Many discoveries started out as accidents that people recognized uses for. Many other designs (accidental or not) have been selected against, that is, discarded. Design itself is an evolutionary process.

Experiments and genetic analysis show that mutations (plus selection) do account for new adaptations (Max 1999).

<end cut/paste>

And "natural selection" is OPPOSITE of random chance.