Evolution Theory

1. 59

   marinealways24posted 14 years ago

   Why is evolution still theory and not fact?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Obscure Divineposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Because, whether something is fact or theory, the ignoramuses still rifely run rampant amid society!

      replyreport
   2. 0

      crmhaskeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Because given the proper circumstances, nothing in this world is a fact.  There is always an "if and only if" corollary.

      replyreport
   3. 80

      Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Still beating that dead horse?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Still glaring at the horses rear?

         replyreport
   4. 60

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Marine:
      Micro evolution has been empirically proved...
      Macro evolution involves "complex' life which takes thousands of years to realize.
      We've only been here for about 30 - 40 k years as modern man.
      We've been here too short a time to be able to prove "macro" evolution.
      Given time, if the historical bane of human progress: monotheism, doesn't end our short reign as earth's prime, semi-conscious predator, it will be proved.
      "Course the biblical god thing you worship may want you to perpetrate armageddon before we do.
      That's a strong, potential probability!

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You religious atheist's are so amusing! You follow the same train of thought as your atheist idols in assuming things! Where did I ever write something that said I don't think it's fact?
         If you are logical rather than faithful, you should at least post my comments where I say it's not fact. I think you should stop relying on your atheist idols to think for you.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Marine:
            What ever gave you the idea I'm an atheist?
            I've said this before: I am not an atheist, an agnostic, deist or a believer in mythical supernatural entities.
            Read that slowly. Ok?
            I hope it got thru this time.....:-)

            replyreport
            1. 59

               marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

               lol You don't have to say it, you follow the same thought patterns and make the same Darwinian Evolutionists religious faithful assumptions without evidence. Maybe if you wouldn't make so many incorrect assumptions, you wouldn't think as an atheist. I think you are lying to say you don't lean toward atheist rather than religion.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Marine:
                  There is no such thing as atheism.
                  I've explained that b4 too.
                  I hope that one day you have an epiphany that guides you to "understanding and reality."
                  I wish you the best and that time and study rewards you with "intellect."
                  I cross my fingers for ya!    :-)

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     lol Why is there no atheism? Yes, maybe one day I will gain enlighentment of quarks to your level of consciousness to deny the reality of your trained responses.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Marine:
                        I've explained that so many times to so many.
                        When you experience that "epiphany" I just "hoped" for ya and you seem to be ready for a trip into "reality," I'd be glad to explain it again.
                        Until then, and I'll be able to tell when that has happened by your logical and well reasoned responses, I'll just pass on the explanation.
                        I'll keep following your responses and when I feel the time is right, by golly, I'll break it down for ya.
                        I'm patient....:-)

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           lol Explain this reality you think I am supposed to have? The same reality you have which is following group thinking?

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              Marine:
                              I'll recognize when your ready to participate in a discussion of life's realities.
                              At the moment? Nope.
                              Don't give up.
                              Try study in many many other areas, with an open mind.
                              Lay all your preconceived religious notions aside, it'll be difficult, but if you can summon the courage to do that, you will be inundated by wonderously marvelous adventures in a world of reality you haven't yet imagined.
                              The real world is waiting for you! Go for it.   :-)
                              I'm cheering for ya...!

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 lol you make all the faithful close minded assumptions with no evidence then preach to have an open mind. True religion.
                                 What is this wonderful reality of yours? Do you do drugs that alter your reality or simply meditate to gain your qwark enlightenment? More assumptions in having faith that I haven't witnessed the real world.
                                 Sure, no experience traveling while in the Marines, one would think you would use logic to understand a prior Marine has experience to write from. It should be common sense for someone that is enlightened to understand qwarks.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                    When you are ready and ABLE to use logic and reason Marine, by golly I'll be right there to amiably discuss any subject you desire.
                                    I've got 4 yrs USAF in time of war my friend....our service time has nothing to do with subjects concerning metaphysical divinities. I don't know why you brought that up. Just one of the reasons I feel you are not "intellectually" ready to discuss the real world yet.
                                    NP....when you are, you and I will "hub" as friendly participants.    :-)

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 59

                                       marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       lol More preaching of logic and reason when you only make faithful assumption after faithful assumption. Go back to the drawing board.
                                       
                                       Even worse that you are prior military and didn't have the common sense to think I haven't experienced the real world. What is this assumption of a metaphysical divinity? What book are you pulling this from, I have said nothing of the sort. I see how you design your religious reality, you just see what you want to see.

                                       report
                                 2. 80

                                    earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                    Yeh that's right marine. Anyone who doesn't believe a concocted ridiculous belief must have a religious motivation to do so.
                                    
                                    You keep flogging the same dead horse, accusing people of having an agenda because they disagree with you, and making assumptions about non believers needing to be religious followers of another doctrine simply because they disagree with the madness written in a tome that simply copied something that came thousands of years before it.
                                    I know you will go on and on in this thread until you drive away everyone who has a different opinion. Same old same old.....
                                    For you to speak of others lacking reason and common sense cracks me up!

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 59

                                       marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       lol And what is the ridiculous belief you are talking about that doesn't make sense?
                                       
                                       What is the agenda I am accusing everyone of? Non believers follow a group of non belief they think is logical because they want something to believe.
                                       
                                       I enjoy the different opinions, if I agreed or everyone agreed with me, I wouldn't learn anything, kinda like a religious belief or religious non belief.

                                       report
      2. 67

         Appletreedealsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Geez ... I should be more productive with my time. But sometimes you just need a break. So ...
         
         I think you have it backwards.
         Macro-evolution is much easier to illustrate and document -
         fish -> reptile -> mammal (lol maybe -  not totally validated), or more simple examples, fined fish to flying fish, drab male of species to colorful male of species, caveman to modern man, (yes there are definate biological evolutionary changes in a species)
         
         Micro-evolution is where the "monkeywrench"
         (uh, pun appropriate)
         gets thrown in. it's in micro-evolution where the irreducible complexity theory of the flagella/flagellum (sp?)and complex cell structure stumps pure evolutionists. And you can really stump a pure evolutionist if you bring bacteria into the discussion. (no major evolutionary changes in millions of generations)
         
         I think both camps have valid points, and trying to pick a side loses me several hours of sleep each night.
         
         GA

         replyreport
   5. 0

      LegendaryHeroposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The scientific meaning of theory differs from its common usage:
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

      replyreport
   6. 59

      Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It is neither theory or fact, but a conundrum for those who haven't read The Origin of Species.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         It sure is, now tell us how you read it and still are incapable to comprehend that mind designs evolution rather than unconscious mechanisms or as your idol Dawkins loves to say, "nonrandom" natural selection. It is conscious selection.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            My capacity for understanding evolution precludes the necessity to comprehend uniformed beliefs.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

               lol What is the uniformed belief?

               replyreport
   7. 61

      Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Really? Do you really not understand science that much?
      
      The most anything can ever be in science is a theory.
      
      A brief list of theories that impact your life on a daily basis:
      
      the theory of evolution
      the theory of atoms
      the theory of gravity
      the theory of special relativity
      the theory of thermodynamics
      the theory of electrons
      the theory of photons
      the theory of fusion
      the theory of the four forces of nature
      the theory of general relativity
      the theory of inertia
      the theory of mass
      the theory of momentum
      
      ... i could go on for days.
      
      You can never prove anything in science. You can only FAIL to DISprove something repeatedly.
      
      This is the beauty of science, and the reason your argument against Evolution makes no sense (you make a similar argument to the following in other forums): People who 'believe' in evolution only do so because they were taught it by others -- that doesn't make it true.
      
      But you're ignoring something that's very important --- IMAGINE IF YOU WERE THE GUY (or gal) WHO PROVED DARWIN WRONG!!!!! You'd be an instant Science Legend. You're name would go down in the annals of history with Einstein, Newton, Fermi, and all the others. EVERY biologist would LOVE to prove Darwin wrong...
      
      ... but they can't. Not a single one has been able to prove him wrong.
      
      That's how science works. That's why "it's ONLY a theory".

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Ghost32posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Yep, you'd be famous...if you survived the hazing by your vitriolic peers after you published your findings, that is.
         
         Well, you'd still be famous.  You might just also be dead, though.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Evan G Rogersposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            yes, if you managed to actually publish something that conclusively defeated all that evolution has predicted and described....
            
            ... and... no one ... killed you...?
            
            ... then you'd be famous?
            
            Good job on that one...

            replyreport
            1. 47

               marinealwaysposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Deleted
               1. 73

                  Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  "Darwins conscious observations designed his theory,"
                  
                  I'd say that Darwin, consciously observing, and using his conscious observations, designed his theory.
                  
                  "...no matter how you ...[try] to disprove evolution isn't designed by conscious selection of the environment, it gives more credit to it being designed"
                  
                  Wait. Are you postulating that the environment is a conscious entity?

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Obscure Divineposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Do you dislike the Gaia principle?

                     replyreport
                     1. 73

                        Jeff Berndtposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        I neither like nor dislike it. I was just trying to make sure I understood what Marine was saying. (or not saying, I guess, since that post is now gone )

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Obscure Divineposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Yeah, that sucks.  I don't know what happened to his post or him, for that matter.    It sounds like a royal banning took place or a removal therein.  Hmm...  Well, at least you seem open-minded about things......

                           replyreport
2. 59

   calpol25posted 14 years ago

   probably because people dont want to admit that their are things that we cant control or explain with science.

   replyreport
3. 59

   calpol25posted 14 years ago

   I agree obscure "ignorance is bliss" for some people

   replyreport
4. 68

   ilmdamailyposted 14 years ago

   Because as a theory it is still only about 200 years old.
   
   The scope of history to which the theory applies is in the billions of years. We've only had less than 200 years or so to rigorously apply some sort of scientific observation or testing to it.
   
   That said, its status as a "theory" rather than "fact" does not take away from it's supreme usefulness as a concept. As far as deterministic accounts of the origin of life on earth go, it's the best we've got.

   replyreport
5. 64

   Greek Oneposted 14 years ago

   I don't think there is a universally accepted body that can turn such "theories" into "facts", is there?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      crmhaskeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      For it to be a fact, the majority of the world would have to agree it was one.
      
      The acceleration of gravity on Earth = 9.81 m/s^2 -> this is a fact, because every scientist in existence agrees with it.
      
      Good luck getting everyone to agree evolution is indisputable. There are apparently people in Kentucky that believe a wood ark could support the weight of dinosaurs as if it was climatically possible for man and dinosaur exist at the same time in the first place.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         Greek Oneposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         i don't believe in gravity...
         
         how do you explain kites, eh?
         
         HA!
         
         you and your crazy theories!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            crmhaskeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            lol, I am an Aerospace Engineer - do you really want me to get into the aerodynamics of kites?

            replyreport
      2. 61

         Obscure Divineposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Facts doesn't relate to the majority.  Hell, the majority is ignorant... 

         replyreport
         1. 0

            crmhaskeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Ultimately, no.  However, it is absolutely impossible to know any ultimate truths, and as such the "truth" is what the majority believes.
            
            History doesn't write itself, the victors do.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Obscure Divineposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               You are on your own, when it comes to your second sentence.  I claim no part in it; good luck with that one... 

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  crmhaskeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  lol, not too long ago the Quebec Provincial government released an official apology for knowingly printing, and as such teaching, lies in elementary and highschool history textbooks regarding the province's history.  They also unsuccessful tried to rig the referendum vote for Quebec to separate losing 49-51.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Obscure Divineposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     ...No need to bring politics into the mix.  Geez!

                     replyreport
6. 63

   ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago

   To prove a theory, you must be able to recreate one in a 'laboratory' repeatedly. Until we see actual evolution take place in a massive scale, meaning an actual change of bodily form it will not be proven.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      We see a single cell evolve into a human in 9 months. I think this is good evidence.

      replyreport
7. 0

   Ghost32posted 14 years ago

   I don't know how many ranchers would agree, but having grown up as a rancher's son, I always found the simple breeding process to be at least indicative of evolution as an ongoing process.  (Referring here to the proclivity of cattle breeders to produce critters that are admittedly still "cows" but producing meatier buttocks, etc.)
   
   However, the strongest single incident on the ranch to make me darned near certain...was a throwback.  This was a colt born when I was about 15 years old.  He grew up to be the most hideous "horse" you've ever seen.  "Jugheaded" is a derogatory term, but this guy had one.  He looked nothing like either parent.  They weren't runts, but he towered over them.  Both front legs "came out of the same hole" (which is another derogatory horse term--there was NO gap between his upper front legs where they joined the body).
   
   He looked more like a giraffe than a horse.  Plus, besides being plug ugly, he wasn't the brightest beastie on the block, either.
   
   Figured there must have been a couple of genes in that mix somewhere that dated back to long lost fossildom....

   replyreport