Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

carbon dating

Solar flares actually affect radioactive decay.

Why?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is nothing but an example of Atheist arrogance and idiocy.

At 7/15/11 10:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The Flying Spaghetti Monster is nothing but an example of Atheist arrogance and idiocy.

;;;
Actually its more than that.
It is actually a way of pointing out the arrogance & idiocy of the worlds organized religions.
After all, how is claiming a cosmic piece of pasta,as being the Omniputent GOD any different than claiming an old invisible guy looking down at us & judging each & everyone of us is the omniputent God ?!

When you expand on that & look at the various religious dogma.... THere is really nothing at all different about them.
My omniputent Pasta God.
IS JUST AS RELEVANT
As your old bearded shy god...after all he won't talk to us directly & neither does the Manicotti Monster !

I have no proof of my claims & you have no proof of your claims, nor do the religious people of any other worshipped deity have any more proof than a pastafarian does.

ONE THING MORE.
Unlike all the other Religions of the world, The worshippers of the Pasta god, are not judgemental to the point that all nonbelievers are obviously destined to eternity in hell. There is no punishment or demands placed on a pastafarian, the same cannot be said about Christians, Muslims, Jews etc

Have a nice day, & remember the only thing the God of Pasta wants is for you to be happy & eat well with those you care for ~:)

At 7/16/11 10:37 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 7/15/11 10:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The Flying Spaghetti Monster is nothing but an example of Atheist arrogance and idiocy.

;;;
It is actually a way of pointing out the arrogance & idiocy of the worlds organized religions.

You missed my point. I know the textbook why of the FSM. I am just saying that the FSM is nothing more than a few atheists' need to borrow the dogma of their religious counterparts and claim that all others are wrong.

The hilarity of it is that for a group that wants to be so different from all the failings of organized religion, it buys so heavily into one of religion's biggest failings.

At 7/15/11 01:05 AM, djack wrote:

Once again you're taking preexisting genetic trait that simply changed in frequency as a result of different environmental circumstance. As I stated before that is natural selection which does not equal evolution. Even the case of E coli is more likely to be a result of contamination than mutation. Most of the changes have been displayed in all 12 cultures which indicates that those were already part of the E coli DNA when the experiment began. Those few changes that only showed up in one or two cultures could easily be the result of a mistake as all of the traits new to E coli are common in other forms of bacteria.

Umm, dear dipshit, that is the definition of evolution. Evolution,is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.
As for the Ecoli, honestly, your explanation is bullshit. It was an observed mutation and you simply don't want to admit it.

various famous evolution experiments

Also, FSM is satire.

At 7/16/11 10:08 PM, E1EE7 wrote:

At 7/15/11 01:05 AM, djack wrote:

Once again you're taking preexisting genetic trait that simply changed in frequency as a result of different environmental circumstance. As I stated before that is natural selection which does not equal evolution. Even the case of E coli is more likely to be a result of contamination than mutation. Most of the changes have been displayed in all 12 cultures which indicates that those were already part of the E coli DNA when the experiment began. Those few changes that only showed up in one or two cultures could easily be the result of a mistake as all of the traits new to E coli are common in other forms of bacteria.

Umm, dear dipshit, that is the definition of evolution. Evolution,is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.

Now you're just being an ass for the sake of being an ass. Technically the definition of evolution is change over time, but you aren't arguing that things change over time cause that's true of everything not just organic creatures you are arguing for the existence of Darwinian Macro-evolution in which living organisms change species over time. A change in genetic variance does not cause a change in species it causes minor physical differences that would disappear should their environmental circumstances change back to what they were before regardless of how long it takes for things to go back to normal.

As for the Ecoli, honestly, your explanation is bullshit. It was an observed mutation and you simply don't want to admit it.

Why, because the lab never screws up? This is one experiment and even one mistake could produce the results they've experienced. A year or two ago a scientist claimed to have found DNA withing a fossil, it turned out he just didn't clean his tools well enough and what he actually found was ostrich DNA. One experiment is always meaningless in science until it has been duplicated several times with similar results, that is how the scientific method works.

various famous evolution experiments

All of which were experiments in natural/artificial selection which does not create new species as I have repeatedly pointed out. If you truly believe that taxonomers are correct in labeling domesticated dogs as a separate species from the wolves they descended from you clearly don't know as much about genetics and biology as you think you do.

Also, FSM is satire.

That's the only smart thing you've said in this thread.

This is why I stay away from the Political forums.

Nothing but Christians vs. Atheists and Democrats vs. Republicans. It's kind of like watching a train wreck, but worse.

Where to start?
1. The sheer amount of evidence presented, on top of the fact that the only other "theory" presented as an alternative to evolution is some form of "God did it" from the religious groups, not too mention that every credible biologist agrees that evolution does in fact occur and can be demonstrated.

2. Evolution is change over time through genetics in one of 4 ways: Natural selection, genetic drift, genetic flow and mutation. You yourself have shown belief in mutation, natural selection.

3. Your explanations for the age of the world is, put simply, half assed. You claims of how the earth changes through natural disaster fails to take into the fact that geologists know the difference between a flood that happened last year and a flood that happened 2 billion years ago in the soil record.

4. Your disdain for macro evolition is puzzling. Maco evolution is simply micro evolution over a long period of time.

5. Evolution proved

6.Evolution of the human skull

7. The reason for my abusiveness is simple, you are arguing the equivalent of the geocentric theory of the universe. Despite all the evidence, you refuse to believe the obvious.

At 7/17/11 12:00 AM, E1EE7 wrote: Where to start?
1. The sheer amount of evidence presented, on top of the fact that the only other "theory" presented as an alternative to evolution is some form of "God did it" from the religious groups, not too mention that every credible biologist agrees that evolution does in fact occur and can be demonstrated.

There are credible biologists around the world that don't believe in evolution. That was the entire point of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, that credible intelligent people don't believe in evolution and are often ostracized because of it, especially in America where any disagreement with the popular theory results in losing all funding. In fact, before you make that claim again I suggest you watch the movie and then decide whether you really believe that all credible biologists support evolution.

2. Evolution is change over time through genetics in one of 4 ways: Natural selection, genetic drift, genetic flow and mutation. You yourself have shown belief in mutation, natural selection.

Natural selection, genetic drift, and genetic flow don't allow any creature to change species. Different ratios of alleles do not separate one species from another there is a distinct genetic difference that makes it physically impossible for the two creatures to produce offspring capable of reproduction. All three of those things do occur but that does not prove evolution any more than faith healing proves the existence of God (which is to say that it doesn't prove it at all). Mutations in the DNA are documented fact but beneficial mutations are not. Negative mutations are generally things like cancer or birth defects where something is born with an extra chromosome due to a mistake during gametic production.

3. Your explanations for the age of the world is, put simply, half assed. You claims of how the earth changes through natural disaster fails to take into the fact that geologists know the difference between a flood that happened last year and a flood that happened 2 billion years ago in the soil record.

I never claimed the Earth wasn't 4 billion years old (in fact if you read my post you would see that I admit it might be) I simply said that I am unsure of the age of the Earth because the evidence presented by scientist has potential alternative explanations.

4. Your disdain for macro evolition is puzzling. Maco evolution is simply micro evolution over a long period of time.

No it isn't. Micro evolution is natural change within a species due to a different environment causing alleles to appear in different ratios than before, macro evolution is dependent upon mutations directly affecting the genetic structure of a creature to add new alleles. No form of micro evolution is capable of adding information to DNA.

5. Evolution proved

6.Evolution of the human skull

I'm not even going to bother reading those as they're either an artist rendering of how scientists think evolution in a species looks or an example of natural selection again which as I've repeatedly stated does not prove evolution. All of the charts of one creature evolving into another (e.g. the evolution of man) are as scientifically valid as the Haeckle chart that show a human fetus as having gills and a tail.

7. The reason for my abusiveness is simple, you are arguing the equivalent of the geocentric theory of the universe. Despite all the evidence, you refuse to believe the obvious.

No, I'm arguing against people treating evolution as fact. We have satellite imagery that shows our planet orbiting the sun we do not have any case of one species turning into another. You refuse to accept that you believe something that isn't proven fact and you support it with bullshit you call evidence while any good theist is willing to admit that their faith is just that, faith.

At 7/17/11 12:50 AM, djack wrote:

At 7/17/11 12:00 AM, E1EE7 wrote:

There are credible biologists around the world that don't believe in evolution. That was the entire point of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, that credible intelligent people don't believe in evolution and are often ostracized because of it, especially in America where any disagreement with the popular theory results in losing all funding. In fact, before you make that claim again I suggest you watch the movie and then decide whether you really believe that all credible biologists support evolution.

You're not seriously citing Ben Stein as a reputable expert on evolution? There's a reason that it's at 10% on RottenTomatoes.com. Very few movies I have seen have been so patronizing, with such in obvious message, that being to put "Intelligent Design" (also known as Creationism) in public schools.

In short, the movie is bullshit.

At 7/17/11 01:05 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

At 7/17/11 12:50 AM, djack wrote:

At 7/17/11 12:00 AM, E1EE7 wrote:

There are credible biologists around the world that don't believe in evolution. That was the entire point of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, that credible intelligent people don't believe in evolution and are often ostracized because of it, especially in America where any disagreement with the popular theory results in losing all funding. In fact, before you make that claim again I suggest you watch the movie and then decide whether you really believe that all credible biologists support evolution.

You're not seriously citing Ben Stein as a reputable expert on evolution? There's a reason that it's at 10% on RottenTomatoes.com. Very few movies I have seen have been so patronizing, with such in obvious message, that being to put "Intelligent Design" (also known as Creationism) in public schools.

In short, the movie is bullshit.

Ben Stein is not the expert on evolution and the movie is not trying to get public schools to teach creationism. The movie is about those people who have suffered for countering evolution in an attempt to show the bias within the scientific community and encourage people to be more accepting of those with a differing opinion. People have lost funding for experiments, lost their tenure, and lost their jobs for arguing against evolution. The movie is not bullshit and your obvious lack of knowledge about the movie shows that you have never actually seen it so you're in no position to criticize it.

At 7/17/11 01:35 AM, djack wrote:

At 7/17/11 01:05 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

At 7/17/11 12:50 AM, djack wrote:

At 7/17/11 12:00 AM, E1EE7 wrote:

In short, the movie is bullshit.

Ben Stein is not the expert on evolution and the movie is not trying to get public schools to teach creationism. The movie is about those people who have suffered for countering evolution in an attempt to show the bias within the scientific community and encourage people to be more accepting of those with a differing opinion. People have lost funding for experiments, lost their tenure, and lost their jobs for arguing against evolution. The movie is not bullshit and your obvious lack of knowledge about the movie shows that you have never actually seen it so you're in no position to criticize it.

Think of this link as my retort.

If you ever cared to do any sort of research on the film, you would realize that the stories of Richard Sternburg, Caroline Crocker, Robert Marks, etc. Were not fired, did not lose their tenure, and did NOT get reprimanded for legitimate violations of their teaching ethics.

IN SHORT THE MOVIE IS AN OBVIOUS PLOY TO SHOVE "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" DOWN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY'S THROAT, ERGO ALLOW IT PUBLIC SCHOOL AND IS THUSLY, BULLSHIT. .

At 7/17/11 01:52 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

At 7/17/11 01:35 AM, djack wrote:

At 7/17/11 01:05 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

At 7/17/11 12:50 AM, djack wrote:

At 7/17/11 12:00 AM, E1EE7 wrote:

In short, the movie is bullshit.

Ben Stein is not the expert on evolution and the movie is not trying to get public schools to teach creationism. The movie is about those people who have suffered for countering evolution in an attempt to show the bias within the scientific community and encourage people to be more accepting of those with a differing opinion. People have lost funding for experiments, lost their tenure, and lost their jobs for arguing against evolution. The movie is not bullshit and your obvious lack of knowledge about the movie shows that you have never actually seen it so you're in no position to criticize it.

Think of this link as my retort.

If you ever cared to do any sort of research on the film, you would realize that the stories of Richard Sternburg, Caroline Crocker, Robert Marks, etc. Were not fired, did not lose their tenure, and did NOT get reprimanded for legitimate violations of their teaching ethics.

IN SHORT THE MOVIE IS AN OBVIOUS PLOY TO SHOVE "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" DOWN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY'S THROAT, ERGO ALLOW IT PUBLIC SCHOOL AND IS THUSLY, BULLSHIT. .

Did you actually read the site or your post? Because your post actually says that they weren't reprimanded for legitimate reasons. And the site is both obviously biased and self contradictory. For example while claiming that Richard Sternberg was lying about being attacked for the paper he published it admits that he was attacked for the paper he published and complains that the paper he published wasn't reviewed sufficiently before being published but ignores the fact that scientific magazines won't publish a properly reviewed paper. In the part about Michael Egnor it says that "Egnor's fellow medical professionals, who recognized Egnor's arguments as old hat, and another attempt by creationists to co-opt the respectability of a white coat" essentially stating that creationists don't get respect in the scientific field.

IN SHORT! YOU USED A SOURCE SO BIASED AS TO BE COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE AND THE MOVIE ITSELF ONLY HAS ABOUT 20 MINUTES ABOUT ID TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS THESE PEOPLE BELIEVE IN ITS ENTIRE 90 MINUTE RUN TIME WHICH IS ABOUT HALF THE TIME IT SPENDS TALKING TO EVOLUTIONISTS THAT CLAIM EVOLUTION IS FACT. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS TRYING TO FORCE ID ON THE PUBLIC.

It wasn't pictures, it was youtube vids.

As for Expelled, that is pure hogwash, a propaganda piece funded by the christian right. It is light on facts and is mostly a "poor oppressed Creationists" movie. Read a review of it and you will find just how much bullshit ben stien spewed.

As for changing species, Evolution doesn't work that way. Over time, two variants of a species slowly differ enough to be classified as separate. Like how a dog is different then a wolf.

As for beneficial mutations, I already pointed out sickle cell anemia. How about bacteria developing a resistance to various antibiotics?
Or how about being Lactose tolerant? Normally, after age 2, humans become lactose interolerant due to us no longer needing to drink breast milk. However, since milk is full of nutrients, those who can drink it are healthier. Hence, why two different gene mutations, one for europeans, and in east africa, a cattle herding area.
emerged in africa around 3,000 years ago

Next, it's not just genes, it's also methyl groups. It is what turns genes on and off.
DNA methylation

As for Haeckle, those charts are real. Ask any doctor and they will tell you that yes, human fetuses have gills and a tail.

At 7/17/11 03:04 AM, E1EE7 wrote: It wasn't pictures, it was youtube vids.

That doesn't make it any more real or change the fact that you have repeatedly posted links to sites that claim natural selection is evolution, a point that we have been over repeatedly.

As for Expelled, that is pure hogwash, a propaganda piece funded by the christian right. It is light on facts and is mostly a "poor oppressed Creationists" movie. Read a review of it and you will find just how much bullshit ben stien spewed.

I don't need to read a review because unlike you and smartass I actually watched the movie rather than listening to a bunch of evolutionists bitch about how the movie didn't make fun of creationists like they wanted it to.

As for changing species, Evolution doesn't work that way. Over time, two variants of a species slowly differ enough to be classified as separate. Like how a dog is different then a wolf.

A dog is only classified as different than a wolf because taxonomists don't have a clear definition of what a species is. Dogs are still capable of mating with wolves and producing offspring capable of reproduction, dogs in natural circumstances over many generations would eventually revert back to being wolves, and the genetic gap between any dog breed and wolves is less than that of any two separate species aside from certain types of bear which are also capable of mating and producing offspring capable of reproduction. A big reason why separate species are separate is because their DNA is so different that even if they were to mate the result is an infertile hybrid (like a liger).

As for beneficial mutations, I already pointed out sickle cell anemia. How about bacteria developing a resistance to various antibiotics?
Or how about being Lactose tolerant? Normally, after age 2, humans become lactose interolerant due to us no longer needing to drink breast milk. However, since milk is full of nutrients, those who can drink it are healthier. Hence, why two different gene mutations, one for europeans, and in east africa, a cattle herding area.
emerged in africa around 3,000 years ago

I've already covered the difference between actual mutations and natural selection changing the variation of genes within a gene pool, your just ignoring my previous statements.

Next, it's not just genes, it's also methyl groups. It is what turns genes on and off.
DNA methylation

As for Haeckle, those charts are real. Ask any doctor and they will tell you that yes, human fetuses have gills and a tail.

That chart was disproven a century ago. No credible scientist or doctor actually believes that the Haeckle chart is real. Those gills aren't actually gills they're folds in the tissues that will develop into bones and specialized types of tissues as the fetus develops.

E1EE7 I'm sick of arguing with you when all you do is ignore what I say so I'm ending this argument. This started because you didn't know the difference between a theory and a law and here is the post that you were never able to refute that proved you were wrong.

At 7/14/11 05:54 PM, djack wrote:

At 7/14/11 04:06 PM, E1EE7 wrote: Theory, oversimplified explanation of a group of phenomena. See Theory of gravity.
Law, mathematical model of theory. See Law of gravitational attraction

That idea is obviously false. If that was true the laws of thermodynamics would be called the theories of thermodynamics when taught in physics classes. The law of gravity is the fact that there is a calculable force between any two objects with mass, the theory of gravity is how this works and includes multiple different explanations such as warped space time and gravitons. They are not the same thing. String theory would be a law when talking about the equation behind it according to you which is clearly bullshit as there are 5different equations to string theory. Perhaps you should study actual theories and laws as opposed to the propaganda you've been fed by evolutionists who don't actually study the theory but do preach their belief in it like a door to door Jehovah's witness.

I won't bother returning to this thread, you've proven to be too stupid to be worth my time.

Since you won't be coming back I see this post as somewhat unnecessary, but I just like setting the record straight. They always come back though.

At 7/17/11 02:29 AM, djack wrote:

At 7/17/11 01:52 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

At 7/17/11 01:35 AM, djack wrote:

At 7/17/11 01:05 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote:

At 7/17/11 12:50 AM, djack wrote:

At 7/17/11 12:00 AM, E1EE7 wrote:

Did you actually read the site or your post?

Yes, Yes I did.

Because your post actually says that they weren't reprimanded for legitimate reasons. And the site is both obviously biased and self contradictory.
The site is called "Expelled Exposed". OF COURSE IT'S GOING TO BIASED, that doesn't mean it's wrong, and the facts are clearly marked for everyone to see. I could easily get you an alternative site, such as Wikipedia to back up my claims, but I'd guess you'd accuse those of being biased as well.

For example while claiming that Richard Sternberg was lying about being attacked for the paper he published it admits that he was attacked for the paper he published and complains that the paper he published wasn't reviewed sufficiently before being published but ignores the fact that scientific magazines won't publish a properly reviewed paper.

The paper was published, that's why it generated of an outcry from the scientific community, because it was such a poorly written, poorly edited paper. In fact, the editing of it was anomaly in that of itself, because it was not edited in the usual fashion, it was published without review by an other associate editor.

Excerpt:
"Expelled claims that Sternberg was "terrorized" and that "his life was nearly ruined" when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination."

The supposed "Contradiction" proposed by Djack:

"There was an understandable outcry from members of the Biological Society of Washington over the embarrassing publication of what they recognized as poorly-written, inaccurate science in their journal."

As you can see, as person not well-versed with words could possibly misconstrue this as saying that Sternburg wasn't terrorized, then saying that he was. However, being terrorized, and being called out by other members of the scientific community are something different altogether.

In the part about Michael Egnor it says that "Egnor's fellow medical professionals, who recognized Egnor's arguments as old hat, and another attempt by creationists to co-opt the respectability of a white coat" essentially stating that creationists don't get respect in the scientific field.

I seriously don't get you. Why do you have such a victim complex about Creationism? Creationism is not science, therefore mentioning in a scientific community is apt to get flak for being "unscientific" or having erroneous beliefs that are not in any way backed up by any evidence. Creationists can be respected in their profession, however, when they publish a paper, there is some sort of expectation that the paper will be related to something scientific.

IN SHORT! YOU USED A SOURCE SO BIASED AS TO BE COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE AND THE MOVIE ITSELF ONLY HAS ABOUT 20 MINUTES ABOUT ID TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS THESE PEOPLE BELIEVE IN ITS ENTIRE 90 MINUTE RUN TIME WHICH IS ABOUT HALF THE TIME IT SPENDS TALKING TO EVOLUTIONISTS THAT CLAIM EVOLUTION IS FACT. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS TRYING TO FORCE ID ON THE PUBLIC.

You couldn't even poke a needle sized hole in this argument boat, unless it hits an iceberg, I really don't think it's going to sink. Parodying me isn't funny.

I'd like to point out that on the front of DVD slip it states: "Big science has expelled smart ideas from the classroom."

HOW MUCH MORE FUCKING OBVIOUS CAN IT GET?

"The film contends that the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature and who criticize evidence supporting Darwinian evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis as a mainstream conspiracy to keep God out of science laboratories and classrooms."

Wikipedia.

I do love me some Roger Ebert, even is a bit condescending in this review.

I'm going to be really pissed if I messed up the formatting of this.

At 7/17/11 10:50 AM, djack wrote: E1EE7 I'm sick of arguing with you when all you do is ignore what I say so I'm ending this argument. This started because you didn't know the difference between a theory and a law and here is the post that you were never able to refute that proved you were wrong.

At 7/14/11 05:54 PM, djack wrote:

At 7/14/11 04:06 PM, E1EE7 wrote: Theory, oversimplified explanation of a group of phenomena. See Theory of gravity.
Law, mathematical model of theory. See Law of gravitational attraction

That idea is obviously false. If that was true the laws of thermodynamics would be called the theories of thermodynamics when taught in physics classes. The law of gravity is the fact that there is a calculable force between any two objects with mass, the theory of gravity is how this works and includes multiple different explanations such as warped space time and gravitons. They are not the same thing. String theory would be a law when talking about the equation behind it according to you which is clearly bullshit as there are 5different equations to string theory. Perhaps you should study actual theories and laws as opposed to the propaganda you've been fed by evolutionists who don't actually study the theory but do preach their belief in it like a door to door Jehovah's witness.

I won't bother returning to this thread, you've proven to be too stupid to be worth my time.

If anyone should be offended, it is me. You are, put simply, a dumbass. Your head is so full of shit, you don't realize what utter nonsense you spew as "fact". The fact you site expelled as evidence shows just how badly you understand evolution.

Your constant idiocy is rather staggering, because I can not fathom how you fail to understand that natural selection is an element of evolution. Odds are, 500 years ago, you would be telling me the sun goes around the earth.

At 8/26/05 07:50 PM, fastbow wrote:

At 8/26/05 07:37 PM, stafffighter wrote: The christian motto "If it's at all possible to prove, it's not true." Evolution, holocoasts, molestation, any of it

No. If it has been proven, we will believe it. EVOLUTION HAS NOT, and cannot, BE PROVEN!!!

Wrong fastbow, evolution in frequently seen in bacterial colonies in the form of drug resistence, and increased (and often decreased) virulence. Sure, evolution is difficult to prove on the scale of human evolution without some sort of time machine, but to suggest it can't be proven is simply false.

,

At 7/19/11 05:57 PM, Scotty9193 wrote:

At 8/26/05 07:50 PM, fastbow wrote:

At 8/26/05 07:37 PM, stafffighter wrote: The christian motto "If it's at all possible to prove, it's not true." Evolution, holocoasts, molestation, any of it

No. If it has been proven, we will believe it. EVOLUTION HAS NOT, and cannot, BE PROVEN!!!

Wrong fastbow, evolution in frequently seen in bacterial colonies in the form of drug resistence, and increased (and often decreased) virulence. Sure, evolution is difficult to prove on the scale of human evolution without some sort of time machine, but to suggest it can't be proven is simply false.

,

Evolution has been proven, just bible thumpers can't accept the fact they aren't god's special little snowflakes and are just simply hairless apes.

At 7/19/11 08:54 PM, E1EE7 wrote: Evolution has been proven, just bible thumpers can't accept the fact they aren't god's special little snowflakes and are just simply hairless apes.

If it was proven it wouldn't be a theory, now would it?

At 7/20/11 11:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/19/11 08:54 PM, E1EE7 wrote: Evolution has been proven, just bible thumpers can't accept the fact they aren't god's special little snowflakes and are just simply hairless apes.

If it was proven it wouldn't be a theory, now would it?

actually, yea. yea it would. it can be disputed but the only way to replace it is to disprove it, this is something that hasn't been done. There is evidence that Evolution is true, that's why its a theory, there is no evidence that creationism is true, that's why its crazy.

E=MC2 is a theory, people have disputed it, but nobody has been able to disprove it.

At 7/21/11 12:21 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: E=MC2 is a theory, people have disputed it, but nobody has been able to disprove it.

A theory is a scientific hypothesis that may be corroborated but can never be proven (at least with our current capabilities). If it were proven it would be a law.

Also, the lack of evidence disproving something does not itself become proof of that thing. You can't disprove that a god exists, but that in no way means a god does exist.

At 7/20/11 11:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/19/11 08:54 PM, E1EE7 wrote: Evolution has been proven, just bible thumpers can't accept the fact they aren't god's special little snowflakes and are just simply hairless apes.

If it was proven it wouldn't be a theory, now would it?

At 7/20/11 11:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/19/11 08:54 PM, E1EE7 wrote: Evolution has been proven, just bible thumpers can't accept the fact they aren't god's special little snowflakes and are just simply hairless apes.

If it was proven it wouldn't be a theory, now would it?

Well, in that case, we can ignore the theory of gravitiational attraction then!

Here is a HUGE secret of the English Language: Words can have different meaning depending on context!

Cleave can mean to cut apart OR bring together.

In the case of science, Theory means an oversimplification of a set of phenomena. The Theory of Relativity explains that time is based on relative position and curves like gravity dues around planets.

In the words of Stephen Hawking, the world's smartest man and prominent authority on quantum mechanics said in his book, a brief history of time ""A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary consequence of using inductive logic."

But it's just a theory!

At 7/21/11 12:49 AM, E1EE7 wrote: Well, in that case, we can ignore the theory of gravitiational attraction then!

If you're willing to take such a drastic step, go ahead.

All I am saying is not to call a cow a horse. Evolution is an unproven theory, not a proven law. It is highly corroborated, just like the theory of gravity.

At 7/21/11 12:52 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/21/11 12:49 AM, E1EE7 wrote: Well, in that case, we can ignore the theory of gravitiational attraction then!

If you're willing to take such a drastic step, go ahead.

All I am saying is not to call a cow a horse. Evolution is an unproven theory, not a proven law. It is highly corroborated, just like the theory of gravity.

Evolution can't become a scientific law because it is an observation of empirical evidence, unlike a scientific law which is an easily observable truth that requires no explanation because it has been proven to invariably occur. Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse. A law describes a single action whereas a theory describes an entire series of phenomena.

Anyone who knows pretty much worth beans about the scientific process, when a hypothesis becomes a theory, that theory is almost universally acknowledge by the scientific community to be true. However that doesn't necessarily mean that it is infallible, quite the opposite actually, components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

The theory is "proven" to be true under almost all circumstances.

At 7/21/11 12:52 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

All I am saying is not to call a cow a horse. Evolution is an unproven theory, not a proven law. It is highly corroborated, just like the theory of gravity.

Howdy there, little fella! I'ma new to this here thread, so I am not entirely privy to all the information that's been done told to ya!
But still I feel like I've gotta weigh in on this discussion y'all been having! For ya see, them whacky scientist don't mean some hunch of them when they say "theory". Quite the opposite, they's definition of a "theory" is a strait-up, well-tested system of rules that been done well usefull when describing the wide world 'round them!
Ya'll be very surprised to hear, I reckon, that, in that fine art of them sciences, no-one can in fact ever prove any or all things! The only thing one's able to do is prove all them things false, and in fact nothing's ever the real science if it ain't be able to be proven false!

So, keeping them all facts in mind, evolution is indeed the most usefull concept known to them biologists. For ya see, it's been done observed both in the wild and them fancy labaratoriers of theirs. What I'm trying to tell ya, little fella, is that EVOLUTION IS A FACT!

Ya see?

At 7/21/11 07:17 PM, Killersepp wrote:

What I'm trying to tell ya, little fella, is that EVOLUTION IS A FACT!

No it's not. Religion isn't a fact. The speed and makeup of light is not a fact. Relativity is not a fact.

Facts may support these theories, or corroborate these theories, but the cannot be proven. Heck, even if they could be proven they still would be facts, they would be laws.

A cow is not a horse, nor is it a donkey.

Why are you blurring the discussion with these semantics? It is a theory, and it is open to being disproven with reputable evidence, as you're saying. It hasn't yet been disproven yet, so most everyone accepts it nowadays (save for a few that think it conflicts with their beliefs, for some reason). It's widely accepted enough to be used in neurology, economics, biology and artificial intelligence to great effect, and has been mathematically replicated many times. There is virtually no reason (save for a couple of weak arguments presented by ID supporters) to deny it. It's a theory, but it's one that no one should have any reason to treat differently from fact, much like the theory of gravity (back in it's day), the theory of numbers, the theory of relativity (which actually trumped the theory of gravity), etc..

Oh yeah, and the FSM strainer on the guy's head for the driver's licence photo was flippin' hilarious... gettin' back on topic.

At 7/22/11 12:26 AM, Gario wrote: Why are you blurring the discussion with these semantics?

Because any boneheaded enough to say a theory is fact, or is a proven law, is unlikely to have the capaility to sit back and at least entertain the other side.

The stronger need you (the rhetorical 'you', not aimed directly at you, Gario) feel to make grandiose claims about your views represents the you have a poorer understanding of an issue as a whole and an inability to budge for long enough to at least see the issue from another side.

Theoretically, taking ahardliner's view of creationism and applying it to the world we see today, there is at least a plausibility to their views that still warrants some leeway. Even if that plausibility lends itself to scientific trickery by a fallen angel and the idea the hand of God contantly playing with life on Earth. ID theories, being less extreme than this warrant even more open thinking.

Because as many evolution proponents will say "It has not been disproven, therefore it must be true." It has not been disproven that the devil planted dinosaur bones and made them seem old to fool the weak minded. You may think it ludicrous, but remember what you just said about evolution.