Evolution Is Scientific Fact!

The only think I'm debating is that as of yet science doesn't have all the answers. These guys think I'm arguing against evolution. Interesting spin.....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="cory4513"]

[QUOTE="ayanami_rei"]Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory. Not a fact of yet. Just like intelligent design -- creationism -- is a theory. Account_27

Evolution is considered scientific fact and i laugh in your face for thinking creationism is scientific.

Did he ever say creationism was scientific? No. He just said it was a theory.

She said "Evolution is a scientific theory" "Just like ID"

So, yes she did. 

And I gave you whales. >.> Though the lack of fish and reptiles (unless I overlooked them in one of my links) doesn't disprove the theory of evolution...you understand this, yes, I know. Though, IGCSE textbooks show them as a common ancestor and not one transitory to the other...CptJSparrow

Whales aren't what I asked for however....:|

I was referring to man and ??what came before.  No one has produced any.

LJS9502_basic

Dozens of fossils have been presented to you in all links. 

Fish, mammal, reptiles, and humans.  What more do you want?

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]And I gave you whales. >.> Though the lack of fish and reptiles (unless I overlooked them in one of my links) doesn't disprove the theory of evolution...you understand this, yes, I know. Though, IGCSE textbooks show them as a common ancestor and not one transitory to the other...LJS9502_basic

Whales aren't what I asked for however....:|

Actually there should be fossil records of some kind linking the evolution from one to another. Evolution takes time and changes should occur throughout history. Yet there are no transisitional fossils.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Account_27"][QUOTE="cory4513"]

[QUOTE="ayanami_rei"]Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory. Not a fact of yet. Just like intelligent design -- creationism -- is a theory. -Karayan-

Evolution is considered scientific fact and i laugh in your face for thinking creationism is scientific.

Did he ever say creationism was scientific? No. He just said it was a theory.

She said "Evolution is a scientific theory" "Just like ID"

So, yes she did.

How is it fact? Where is the proof?jfkunrendered

[QUOTE="-Karayan-"][QUOTE="Account_27"][QUOTE="cory4513"]

[QUOTE="ayanami_rei"]Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory. Not a fact of yet. Just like intelligent design -- creationism -- is a theory. Account_27

Evolution is considered scientific fact and i laugh in your face for thinking creationism is scientific.

Did he ever say creationism was scientific? No. He just said it was a theory.

She said "Evolution is a scientific theory" "Just like ID"

So, yes she did.

Fair enough, I guess she ony knows then.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]And I gave you whales. >.> Though the lack of fish and reptiles (unless I overlooked them in one of my links) doesn't disprove the theory of evolution...you understand this, yes, I know. Though, IGCSE textbooks show them as a common ancestor and not one transitory to the other...CptJSparrow

Whales aren't what I asked for however....:|

Actually there should be fossil records of some kind linking the evolution from one to another. Evolution takes time and changes should occur throughout history. Yet there are no transisitional fossils.LJS9502_basic

That's out of context....I was responding to someone's post in which that comment was accurate.  However, read the start of what I said....I mentioned the difficulty science is having with man's last ancestor...which you've acknowledged.  So....what's the misunderstanding?

Hell, I'm an atheist and even I can see there are flaws in the theory of evolution.. which is why it's still just a theory. But seeing how far we have come in the last twenty years (scientifically wise), it will be interesting to see if it's still just a theory in twenty more years.
nickmag

This is because educational understanding as to what constitutes a professional term such as scientific theory and a laymen term of theory is not really limited to belief. It's just that people who believe are far more likely to misunderstand it due to conflicts with mysticism.

Theories for instance don't graduate to facts. Gravity is both a theory and a fact. Gravity exists, but the exact nature of how gravity works ascribes to theories that grow with increasing precision. Newton to Einstein for instance.

Likewise Evolution is a fact. The theory will simply get more precise and has over time. ie. Lamarck to Darwin.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]And I gave you whales. >.> Though the lack of fish and reptiles (unless I overlooked them in one of my links) doesn't disprove the theory of evolution...you understand this, yes, I know. Though, IGCSE textbooks show them as a common ancestor and not one transitory to the other...LJS9502_basic

Whales aren't what I asked for however....:|

Actually there should be fossil records of some kind linking the evolution from one to another. Evolution takes time and changes should occur throughout history. Yet there are no transisitional fossils.LJS9502_basic

That's out of context....I was responding to someone's post in which that comment was accurate. However, read the start of what I said....I mentioned the difficulty science is having with man's last ancestor...which you've acknowledged. So....what's the misunderstanding?

Evolution is not the opposite of religion...but there are a few missing holes in the current theory.LJS9502_basic

That's what I initially said.....but I never disputed evolution.  Nothing wrong with questioning science...it's what pushes it for research.:)

[QUOTE="SAURON221"][QUOTE="Decessus"]

[QUOTE="SAURON221"]no its not it is still a theory not a fact-Karayan-

Evolution: The change in allele frequency of a population over time.

It is a fact that evolution happens.

No I am stating that it is not prooven with out a doubt that man evolved from a lower species.

Scientific theories can be practically 100% sure to be true.

Yes, and they can also be 100% false too. So you can't argue that the yare true whe nyou don't know that.

If there are "holes" in evolution .... there are frikkin craters in creationism.......

nuff said

 I just saw it. That was before I stepped in.CptJSparrow

Ok....I'm not an idiot.  I believe in science.....:D

If there are "holes" in evolution .... there are frikkin craters in creationism.......

nuff said

jointed

If there are "holes" in evolution .... there are frikkin craters in creationism.......

nuff said

jointed

It's not supposed to be taken literaly.

Blah blah blah, and I don't even see why people are arguing. A lot of people don't seem to be right but nobody's wrong, so what did this topic accomplish? Hellraiser3899

None of these topics ever really accomplish anything. I'm actually getting sick of them. 

[QUOTE="jointed"]

If there are "holes" in evolution .... there are frikkin craters in creationism.......

nuff said

LJS9502_basic

It's not supposed to be taken literaly.

Blah blah blah, and I don't even see why people are arguing. A lot of people don't seem to be right but nobody's wrong, so what did this topic accomplish? Hellraiser3899

Entertainment......at least for me.  Can't speak for the others.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] I just saw it. That was before I stepped in.LJS9502_basic

Ok....I'm not an idiot. I believe in science.....:D

If there are "holes" in evolution .... there are frikkin craters in creationism.......

nuff said

jointed

No, saying that the flaws in Evolution are "holes" is just such an understatement, seeing that everything was just a coincidence. 

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="jointed"]

If there are "holes" in evolution .... there are frikkin craters in creationism.......

nuff said

quiglythegreat

It's not supposed to be taken literaly.

You would most definitely be wrong.....the message is important not the minutia.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="jointed"]

If there are "holes" in evolution .... there are frikkin craters in creationism.......

nuff said

quiglythegreat

It's not supposed to be taken literaly.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

If there are "holes" in evolution .... there are frikkin craters in creationism.......

nuff said

LJS9502_basic

It's not supposed to be taken literaly.

true LJ....*gives strawberry*

>.> You said "where man came directly from" and my graph shows H. Heidelbergensis.CptJSparrow

You know I was just reading about this somewhere and science does admit to not having found it.  What can I say.  I know I read though I don't remember where....though it was more than one place.  And you know I've never discounted evolution....you should know better.:x

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="jointed"]

If there are "holes" in evolution .... there are frikkin craters in creationism.......

nuff said

quiglythegreat

It's not supposed to be taken literaly.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

If there are "holes" in evolution .... there are frikkin craters in creationism.......

nuff said

jim_shorts

There really isn't any hole in creationism.  Mainly because it's the deus ex machina of theories to explain the origins of life.  =\ 

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="jointed"]

If there are "holes" in evolution .... there are frikkin craters in creationism.......

nuff said

LJS9502_basic

It's not supposed to be taken literaly.

You would most definitely be wrong.....the message is important not the minutia.

Maybe it should have a disclaimer in the beginning of the bible.

"Take this crap light hearted." 

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]>.> You said "where man came directly from" and my graph shows H. Heidelbergensis.LJS9502_basic

You know I was just reading about this somewhere and science does admit to not having found it. What can I say. I know I read though I don't remember where....though it was more than one place. And you know I've never discounted evolution....you should know better.:x

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="jointed"]

If there are "holes" in evolution .... there are frikkin craters in creationism.......

nuff said

Account_27

There really isn't any hole in creationism.  Mainly because it's the deus ex machina of theories to explain the origins of life.  =\ 

The individual churches say many different things about the bible and it becomes even more differential amongst individuals. How can we know what the original interpretation was intended four thousand years ago?CptJSparrow

Maybe it should have a disclaimer in the beginning of the bible.

"Take this crap light hearted." 

-Karayan-

Tolerance is a wonderful thing.

[QUOTE="Account_27"][QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="jointed"]

If there are "holes" in evolution .... there are frikkin craters in creationism.......

nuff said

jim_shorts

There really isn't any hole in creationism. Mainly because it's the deus ex machina of theories to explain the origins of life. =\

Sorry, I actually mean to quote jointed, not you. lol. 

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] The individual churches say many different things about the bible and it becomes even more differential amongst individuals. How can we know what the original interpretation was intended four thousand years ago?quiglythegreat

[QUOTE="-Karayan-"]

Maybe it should have a disclaimer in the beginning of the bible.

"Take this crap light hearted." 

LJS9502_basic

Tolerance is a wonderful thing.

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="Account_27"][QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="jointed"]

If there are "holes" in evolution .... there are frikkin craters in creationism.......

nuff said

Account_27

There really isn't any hole in creationism. Mainly because it's the deus ex machina of theories to explain the origins of life. =\

Sorry, I actually mean to quote jointed, not you. lol. 

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] The individual churches say many different things about the bible and it becomes even more differential amongst individuals. How can we know what the original interpretation was intended four thousand years ago?jim_shorts

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] The individual churches say many different things about the bible and it becomes even more differential amongst individuals. How can we know what the original interpretation was intended four thousand years ago?quiglythegreat

The New Testament has nothing to do with creationism....:| 

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"]The Vatican made the New Testament? Paul and the others are the vatican now?quiglythegreat

[QUOTE="-Karayan-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="jointed"]

If there are "holes" in evolution .... there are frikkin craters in creationism.......

nuff said

CptJSparrow

It's not supposed to be taken literaly.

You would most definitely be wrong.....the message is important not the minutia.

Maybe it should have a disclaimer in the beginning of the bible.

"Take this crap light hearted."

That label makes me want to read it. 

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="jim_shorts"]The Vatican made the New Testament? Paul and the others are the vatican now?jim_shorts

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] The individual churches say many different things about the bible and it becomes even more differential amongst individuals. How can we know what the original interpretation was intended four thousand years ago?quiglythegreat

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] The individual churches say many different things about the bible and it becomes even more differential amongst individuals. How can we know what the original interpretation was intended four thousand years ago?LJS9502_basic

The New Testament has nothing to do with creationism....:|