The creationists are BACK

[AllieBaba]

It would be okay if they were taught as THEORIES but I don't think the distinction is made that they are just THEORIES. I really don't think most teachers, particularly at the grade/middle school level, even remotely grasp the concepts they are teaching, and thus get them wrong, and teach them wrong.

The result is a whole legion of idiots who don't know what the hell they're talking about, but THINK they are superior. It's laughable, but sad at the same time. I'd rather have outright retards populating the citizenry than pseudo-educated loons.

 

[cbirch2]

It would be okay if they were taught as THEORIES but I don't think the distinction is made that they are just THEORIES. I really don't think most teachers, particularly at the grade/middle school level, even remotely grasp the concepts they are teaching, and thus get them wrong, and teach them wrong.

The result is a whole legion of idiots who don't know what the hell they're talking about, but THINK they are superior. It's laughable, but sad at the same time. I'd rather have outright retards populating the citizenry than pseudo-educated loons.

Jesus christ your fucking stupid. Learn what a theory is and then come back here

I hate that people seem to think the progression goes hypothesis > theory> law. no, it does not. Theories will remain theories until the end of time. They are totally distinct from laws. Laws are simply observations, theories explain those observations. For example: Newtonian gravity was a law, only a simple observation. Einstiens gravity was a theory that explained where gravity came from and provided a more precise measurement.

One is an observation, one is an explanation. Therefore theories will only be theories, never anything more. They simply become theories that have stood the test of time and stood continual examination. The idea that the basic unit of life is a cell is just a theory. As is the idea that elements are created by specific atoms. They cant ever be proved 100% true, only less likely to be false, only more valid.

To say evolution is just a theory is a pointless statement, used by the ignorant, that makes absolutely no sense.

 

[AllieBaba]

It would be okay if they were taught as THEORIES but I don't think the distinction is made that they are just THEORIES. I really don't think most teachers, particularly at the grade/middle school level, even remotely grasp the concepts they are teaching, and thus get them wrong, and teach them wrong.

The result is a whole legion of idiots who don't know what the hell they're talking about, but THINK they are superior. It's laughable, but sad at the same time. I'd rather have outright retards populating the citizenry than pseudo-educated loons.

Jesus christ your fucking stupid. Learn what a theory is and then come back here

I hate that people seem to think the progression goes hypothesis > theory> law. no, it does not. Theories will remain theories until the end of time. They are totally distinct from laws. Laws are simply observations, theories explain those observations. For example: Newtonian gravity was a law, only a simple observation. Einstiens gravity was a theory that explained where gravity came from and provided a more precise measurement.

One is an observation, one is an explanation. Therefore theories will only be theories, never anything more. They simply become theories that have stood the test of time and stood continual examination. The idea that the basic unit of life is a cell is just a theory. As is the idea that elements are created by specific atoms. They cant ever be proved 100% true, only less likely to be false, only more valid.

To say evolution is just a theory is a pointless statement, used by the ignorant, that makes absolutely no sense.

So kindly explain why it's called the theory of evolution?

Who's stupid here? You're the one who keeps arguing to points that have never been made.

 

[cbirch2]

It would be okay if they were taught as THEORIES but I don't think the distinction is made that they are just THEORIES. I really don't think most teachers, particularly at the grade/middle school level, even remotely grasp the concepts they are teaching, and thus get them wrong, and teach them wrong.

The result is a whole legion of idiots who don't know what the hell they're talking about, but THINK they are superior. It's laughable, but sad at the same time. I'd rather have outright retards populating the citizenry than pseudo-educated loons.

Jesus christ your fucking stupid. Learn what a theory is and then come back here

I hate that people seem to think the progression goes hypothesis > theory> law. no, it does not. Theories will remain theories until the end of time. They are totally distinct from laws. Laws are simply observations, theories explain those observations. For example: Newtonian gravity was a law, only a simple observation. Einstiens gravity was a theory that explained where gravity came from and provided a more precise measurement.

One is an observation, one is an explanation. Therefore theories will only be theories, never anything more. They simply become theories that have stood the test of time and stood continual examination. The idea that the basic unit of life is a cell is just a theory. As is the idea that elements are created by specific atoms. They cant ever be proved 100% true, only less likely to be false, only more valid.

To say evolution is just a theory is a pointless statement, used by the ignorant, that makes absolutely no sense.

So kindly explain why it's called the theory of evolution?

Who's stupid here? You're the one who keeps arguing to points that have never been made.

Its called the theory of evolution because its an explanation of an observation not because its an untested thought experiment. Anyone whose point hinges on "evolution is just a theory" is a fucking idiot.

How about you tell my why its called "the theory of electricity". Just because its called a theory doesnt mean we dont know what electricity is.

 

[cbirch2]

Here hows this as an explanation of a theory.

Newtons law of gravity was Force = (M*m*g)/r^2. It simply made that observation and explained nothing about it. Einsteins theory of gravity provided an explanation as to why masses attract each other and gave us a new equations that actually provided the right answers when newtons couldnt.

Newtons "Law of Gravitation" is now totally invalid for everything but basic purposes. However, Einsteins "Theory of Gravity" is much more precise and has never been proved wrong.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It would be okay if they were taught as THEORIES but I don't think the distinction is made that they are just THEORIES. I really don't think most teachers, particularly at the grade/middle school level, even remotely grasp the concepts they are teaching, and thus get them wrong, and teach them wrong.

The result is a whole legion of idiots who don't know what the hell they're talking about, but THINK they are superior. It's laughable, but sad at the same time. I'd rather have outright retards populating the citizenry than pseudo-educated loons.

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould writes, "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."[2]
Similarly, biologist Richard Lenski says, "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change."[6]
Biologist T. Ryan Gregory says, "biologists rarely make reference to 'the theory of evolution,' referring instead simply to 'evolution' (i.e., the fact of descent with modification) or 'evolutionary theory' (i.e., the increasingly sophisticated body of explanations for the fact of evolution). That evolution is a theory in the proper scientific sense means that there is both a fact of evolution to be explained and a well-supported mechanistic framework to account for it."[20]




The comparison to gravity is perfect. You have evolution and gravity, and you have theory of gravity and the theory of evolution.


It makes just as much sense to deny gravity, as it does to deny evolution.

 

[AllieBaba]

Jesus christ your fucking stupid. Learn what a theory is and then come back here

I hate that people seem to think the progression goes hypothesis > theory> law. no, it does not. Theories will remain theories until the end of time. They are totally distinct from laws. Laws are simply observations, theories explain those observations. For example: Newtonian gravity was a law, only a simple observation. Einstiens gravity was a theory that explained where gravity came from and provided a more precise measurement.

One is an observation, one is an explanation. Therefore theories will only be theories, never anything more. They simply become theories that have stood the test of time and stood continual examination. The idea that the basic unit of life is a cell is just a theory. As is the idea that elements are created by specific atoms. They cant ever be proved 100% true, only less likely to be false, only more valid.

To say evolution is just a theory is a pointless statement, used by the ignorant, that makes absolutely no sense.

So kindly explain why it's called the theory of evolution?

Who's stupid here? You're the one who keeps arguing to points that have never been made.

Its called the theory of evolution because its an explanation of an observation not because its an untested thought experiment. Anyone whose point hinges on "evolution is just a theory" is a fucking idiot.

How about you tell my why its called "the theory of electricity". Just because its called a theory doesnt mean we dont know what electricity is.

I didn't know there was a theory of electricity.

 

[AllieBaba]

It would be okay if they were taught as THEORIES but I don't think the distinction is made that they are just THEORIES. I really don't think most teachers, particularly at the grade/middle school level, even remotely grasp the concepts they are teaching, and thus get them wrong, and teach them wrong.

The result is a whole legion of idiots who don't know what the hell they're talking about, but THINK they are superior. It's laughable, but sad at the same time. I'd rather have outright retards populating the citizenry than pseudo-educated loons.

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould writes, "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."[2]
Similarly, biologist Richard Lenski says, "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change."[6]
Biologist T. Ryan Gregory says, "biologists rarely make reference to 'the theory of evolution,' referring instead simply to 'evolution' (i.e., the fact of descent with modification) or 'evolutionary theory' (i.e., the increasingly sophisticated body of explanations for the fact of evolution). That evolution is a theory in the proper scientific sense means that there is both a fact of evolution to be explained and a well-supported mechanistic framework to account for it."[20]




The comparison to gravity is perfect. You have evolution and gravity, and you have theory of gravity and the theory of evolution.


It makes just as much sense to deny gravity, as it does to deny evolution.

I've never denied evolution..as far as it goes.

I do not, however, acknowledge that it explains the existence of varied species or has ever had anything to do with the creation of separate species. Because the theory doesn't explain that.

 

[Dr.Drock]

yea we should stop teaching theories in school...

lets stop teaching cellular theory, the theory of electricity, the theory of gravity, atomic theory, lets stop teaching it all. Maybe electricity is the movement of tiny little gnomes.

And maybe its just a coincidence that genetics, geology, anatomy, geography, and biology all agree on the exact same progression through species. maybe is a coincidence that the circulatory system, nervous system, and skeletal system all have a predictable evolution through the animal kingdom that matches time lines based on several different methods of radiological dating, as well as genetics. Maybe its all just a coincidence that we have a progression of skeletons from chimp to human, from austrolipithicus, to homo hablius, to homo erectus, to hamo sapiens.

I guess those arent real things though....at least if your a creationist.

You had me until the last sentence.


Most creationists don't deny evolution, just a very loud minority.

 

[cbirch2]

So kindly explain why it's called the theory of evolution?

Who's stupid here? You're the one who keeps arguing to points that have never been made.

Its called the theory of evolution because its an explanation of an observation not because its an untested thought experiment. Anyone whose point hinges on "evolution is just a theory" is a fucking idiot.

How about you tell my why its called "the theory of electricity". Just because its called a theory doesnt mean we dont know what electricity is.

I didn't know there was a theory of electricity.

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biology: Cell Theory, Germ Theory
Chemistry: Atomic theory, Kinetic theory of gases
Engineering: Circuit theory, Control theory, Signal theory, Systems theory, Information theory


Some other notable ones. Are germs a theory? Are cells a theory? Is the Integrated Circuit in your computer a theory? How about atoms, are they a theory? I bet the people in japan dont think they are.

Electricity is the phenomena of current traveling through a wire. The theory of electricity postulates that the phenomena is due to the movement of electrons across a conductor.

 

[cbirch2]

It would be okay if they were taught as THEORIES but I don't think the distinction is made that they are just THEORIES. I really don't think most teachers, particularly at the grade/middle school level, even remotely grasp the concepts they are teaching, and thus get them wrong, and teach them wrong.

The result is a whole legion of idiots who don't know what the hell they're talking about, but THINK they are superior. It's laughable, but sad at the same time. I'd rather have outright retards populating the citizenry than pseudo-educated loons.

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould writes, "Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."[2]
Similarly, biologist Richard Lenski says, "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change."[6]
Biologist T. Ryan Gregory says, "biologists rarely make reference to 'the theory of evolution,' referring instead simply to 'evolution' (i.e., the fact of descent with modification) or 'evolutionary theory' (i.e., the increasingly sophisticated body of explanations for the fact of evolution). That evolution is a theory in the proper scientific sense means that there is both a fact of evolution to be explained and a well-supported mechanistic framework to account for it."[20]




The comparison to gravity is perfect. You have evolution and gravity, and you have theory of gravity and the theory of evolution.


It makes just as much sense to deny gravity, as it does to deny evolution.

I've never denied evolution..as far as it goes.

I do not, however, acknowledge that it explains the existence of varied species or has ever had anything to do with the creation of separate species. Because the theory doesn't explain that.

So you believe in natural selection, not really in evolution.

If evolution doesnt explain the species then what does? Let me ask you this. Animal evolution supposedly went like this (in a very general sense): fish became amphibians, which became reptiles, which then became mammals (us). Why then are the oldest animal fossils fish, next oldest amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals? Why then does the genetic similarity between these organisms follow the same pattern? Why then does the brain progress in levels of complexity from fish to amphibian to reptiles to mammals? Why then does the circulatory system progress in the same manner? As does the skeletal system and the general anatomy.

You should probably explain all that before you write off evolution. Did satan put it here to trick us?

 

[cbirch2]

yea we should stop teaching theories in school...

lets stop teaching cellular theory, the theory of electricity, the theory of gravity, atomic theory, lets stop teaching it all. Maybe electricity is the movement of tiny little gnomes.

And maybe its just a coincidence that genetics, geology, anatomy, geography, and biology all agree on the exact same progression through species. maybe is a coincidence that the circulatory system, nervous system, and skeletal system all have a predictable evolution through the animal kingdom that matches time lines based on several different methods of radiological dating, as well as genetics. Maybe its all just a coincidence that we have a progression of skeletons from chimp to human, from austrolipithicus, to homo hablius, to homo erectus, to hamo sapiens.

I guess those arent real things though....at least if your a creationist.

You had me until the last sentence.


Most creationists don't deny evolution, just a very loud minority.

I guess my definition of creationist is a term used to define people that think god poofed people into existence as is out of no where. People that find a special link between life and a higher power are just religious, i dont hold them to be crazy or anything. Just the "creationists" as i described before are crazy.

 

[AllieBaba]

yea we should stop teaching theories in school...

lets stop teaching cellular theory, the theory of electricity, the theory of gravity, atomic theory, lets stop teaching it all. Maybe electricity is the movement of tiny little gnomes.

And maybe its just a coincidence that genetics, geology, anatomy, geography, and biology all agree on the exact same progression through species. maybe is a coincidence that the circulatory system, nervous system, and skeletal system all have a predictable evolution through the animal kingdom that matches time lines based on several different methods of radiological dating, as well as genetics. Maybe its all just a coincidence that we have a progression of skeletons from chimp to human, from austrolipithicus, to homo hablius, to homo erectus, to hamo sapiens.

I guess those arent real things though....at least if your a creationist.

You had me until the last sentence.


Most creationists don't deny evolution, just a very loud minority.

I guess my definition of creationist is a term used to define people that think god poofed people into existence as is out of no where.

Where do you think they poofed from?

 

[Dr.Drock]

yea we should stop teaching theories in school...

lets stop teaching cellular theory, the theory of electricity, the theory of gravity, atomic theory, lets stop teaching it all. Maybe electricity is the movement of tiny little gnomes.

And maybe its just a coincidence that genetics, geology, anatomy, geography, and biology all agree on the exact same progression through species. maybe is a coincidence that the circulatory system, nervous system, and skeletal system all have a predictable evolution through the animal kingdom that matches time lines based on several different methods of radiological dating, as well as genetics. Maybe its all just a coincidence that we have a progression of skeletons from chimp to human, from austrolipithicus, to homo hablius, to homo erectus, to hamo sapiens.

I guess those arent real things though....at least if your a creationist.

You had me until the last sentence.


Most creationists don't deny evolution, just a very loud minority.

I guess my definition of creationist is a term used to define people that think god poofed people into existence as is out of no where.

Yes, those people are incorrect.

I'm not a creationist, but most creationists I've talked to believe in the "god's guiding hand behind evolution.'

 

[cbirch2]

You had me until the last sentence.


Most creationists don't deny evolution, just a very loud minority.

I guess my definition of creationist is a term used to define people that think god poofed people into existence as is out of no where.

Where do you think they poofed from?

Life on earth has been one continual process spanning 3.8 billion years. Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor, they didnt poof from anywhere. Neither did the apes. Where the first life form came from is a different story. Maybe god, maybe not, but evolution is fact and if you want to debate it i would love to.

 

[abu afak]

Some Further Clarification on 'Theory' tho thankfully several here already addressed it.
Probably the most common Fallacious response by creationists.

Original link lapsed/by subscription.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
now mirrored in entirety (except illustration or two) at
15 Answers

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief
June 2002

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up.

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely,
but the massing evidence from Paleontology, Genetics, Zoology, Molecular Biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt.
Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known,
creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy."....

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution."..."

 

[cbirch2]

USMB is too funny. Once the smart people stop talking all the fools leave to fight another day.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yeah, that's it. It's not because it's impossible to have an intelligent debate with dishonest hacks who won't speak to the issue...

 

[RDD_1210]

Yeah, that's it. It's not because it's impossible to have an intelligent debate with dishonest hacks who won't speak to the issue...

Ironic, coming from you.

 

[AllieBaba]

Ironic, you thinking that's ironic.