Evolution happens

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is there a rule here that I must have a specific number of posts before I can post the type of comments that I've posted, which were simply matter-of-fact statements in disagreement with your matter-of-fact statements, or are you personally offended that anyone could disagree with you?

Speaking of false science, what kind of science is it when you have no proof of a theory and you carry it forth into the world as if it were proven fact? What kind of science is that?

As far as my ignorance of the definition of 'theory'?

the·o·ry
/ˈTHirē/noun

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
   "Darwin's theory of evolution"

theory definition - Google Search

Isn't that funny? Hmmm. Even Google uses it as an example of the definition.

Wow.

Not saying that you can't say anything with so little posts, but since you're clearly a new user it either leads me to believe that you truly do believe in what you're saying... or you could be a troll. Currently, going with the former because you don't get what a scientific theory is.

Scientific theory:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

When the word 'theory' is used in scientific terms, it isn't scientists going "Hey, we have this idea!". It's more them going "Okay, we have all these interconnecting facts that we've looked at carefully, and we can see them working together to form something, so we'll call that a theory since it works".

 

[Yttrium]

Tell that to Harvard.

(Or will they put you in your place?)

You keep saying that, but it doesn't mean anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

You keep saying that, but it doesn't mean anything.

Tell that to Harvard.

(Or will they point out its meaning to you?)

 

[Think...]

It is interesting that you choose to ignore the validated research of tens of thousands of dedicated individuals, many of whom are Christians, that have confirmed both generalities and details of evolution by a score or more disciplines.

There are just as many, if not more, who have worked up the same amount of evidence to the contrary.

Why does the reality of evolution and the effectiveness of evolutionary theory make you so uncomfortable? You seem to perceive it as a threat. That is also interesting.

Why are you threatened by Creationism? I'm a Christian, it's obvious how it's a threat to me. It's a lie. Christianity is all about Truth. Truth is found in scripture. Evolution is not.

I notice you are new here.

Look again.

This statement of yours seems to come very close to breaking one of the forum rules. Indeed, I think it breaks the spirit of that rule. You are not allowed to say that any member who identifies as a Christian is not a real Christian. Your reference to "honest Christians" seems to place you at, or over the line. Just something for you to reflect on.

I'm not breaking any forum rules, but you're desperate to find something to accuse me of. It's clear I'll need to watch my back for you. Good to know.

I didn't claim anyone was not a Christian and the individual I directed that comment to plainly identifies themself to be non-Christian.

Anything else?

 

[Think...]

Evolution has been repeatedly observed by countless people over centuries.

If YOU say so.

Lucy was a 100% Fraud, and all honest scientists know that.

There has never once been found, and thoroughly documented, an animal in a state of transition between 'kinds'. Animals evolve within their 'kinds.' NONE evolve from one 'kind' to another 'kind.'

In depth DNA research proves that it is absolutely impossible.

It has never happened. Ever.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

there is evolution within same species, never into other species!

That's not the established scientific consensus (you know, the people that developed the very concepts of evolution and species, and have researched and studied them for over 150 years)...

Perhaps you meant the biblical 'kinds' instead of species?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If YOU say so.

Lucy was a 100% Fraud, and all honest scientists know that.

There has never once been found, and thoroughly documented, an animal in a state of transition between 'kinds'. Animals evolve within their 'kinds.' NONE evolve from one 'kind' to another 'kind.'

In depth DNA research proves that it is absolutely impossible.

It has never happened. Ever.

And your evidence that Lucy was a fraud is....?

 

[Think...]

Not saying that you can't say anything with so little posts, but since you're clearly a new user it either leads me to believe that you truly do believe in what you're saying... or you could be a troll. Currently, going with the former because you don't get what a scientific theory is.

I'm not a new user, Deist. It says that under my name because of my low post count. I'm far from new to any of this. Been here for years. And on many other Forums. Get over that perception so you can interact with me accordingly.

I don't care about science jargon or using big scientific words. I speak so the layman can understand me. When people insist on using big sciency words, their unstated purpose falls somewhere between prideful boasting and belittling those who may be unfamiliar with the terminology.

The definition of all the big words you want to use is not rocket science. It's all very easy to understand when we speak as if we want people of all ages and levels of understanding to comprehend. That's my aim. To show simply how much nonsense most of this yammering is.

 

[Think...]

And your evidence that Lucy was a fraud is....?

Um ... historical records?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not a new user, Deist. It says that under my name because of my low post count. I'm far from new to any of this. Been here for years. And on many other Forums. Get over that perception so you can interact with me accordingly.

I don't care about science jargon or using big scientific words. I speak so the layman can understand me. When people insist on using big sciency words, their unstated purpose falls somewhere between prideful boasting and belittling those who may be unfamiliar with the terminology.

The definition of all the big words you want to use is not rocket science. It's all very easy to understand when we speak as if we want people of all ages and levels of understanding to comprehend. That's my aim. To show simply how much nonsense most of this yammering is.

Weird how you choose to focus on me being a deist but all right. You do you. But here, you ARE a new user, and frankly, quite a rude one too.

And yet, when you're talking about something related to science, if you don't use the scientific definitions of words that mean something different when used in a scientific context, then you very quickly run the risk of confusing people with what they mean. Like your attempts to claim theory as being something like an idea and worth nothing, when in fact, a theory is something that follows a hypothesis and actually explains facts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Lucy was a 100% Fraud, and all honest scientists know that.

You may not be aware that there are now over 300 specimens of the same species as 'Lucy' (Australopithecus), so the 'fraud' claim is looking somewhat fragile...

There has never once been found, and thoroughly documented, an animal in a state of transition between 'kinds'. Animals evolve within their 'kinds.' NONE evolve from one 'kind' to another 'kind.'

In depth DNA research proves that it is absolutely impossible.

'Kinds' is not a taxonomic term used in science. But all creatures are effectively in transition from one species to another because populations change over time - it usually takes a long time, but it has been observed both in the lab and in the wild.

Note that this doesn't mean cats becoming birds or dogs or fish; it just means a population is judged to have changed sufficiently to be treated as significantly different from the original ancestral population. Most commonly, this means they can't or won't interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but it's not a hard and fast rule.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Um ... historical records?

Except that the historical record doesn't show that. You either got that claim from somewhere, or you made it up since Lucy is not a fraud.
If Lucy is a fraud, then you can show how it is a fraud.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Evolution is absolutely not a fact and has never been proven.

Biological evolution is the change in heritable characteristics of a population over successive generations.

It happens constantly and demonstrably, even in human populations. Everyday varieties of evolution include bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance and SARS-CoV-2 evolving from Alpha to Beta to Delta to Omicron.

 

[Think...]

Weird how you choose to focus on me being a deist but all right. You do you. But here, you ARE a new user, and frankly, quite a rude one too.

And yet, when you're talking about something related to science, if you don't use the scientific definitions of words that mean something different when used in a scientific context, then you very quickly run the risk of confusing people with what they mean. Like your attempts to claim theory as being something like an idea and worth nothing, when in fact, a theory is something that follows a hypothesis and actually explains facts.

I called you Deist because your buddy tried to accuse me of breaking the forum rules by stating that you aren't Christian. Done with that point.

I posted the definition of Theory for all to see. The Dictionary that I accessed used Darwin's THEORY of Evolution for its example.

Can we move on?

 

[Ophiolite]

There are just as many, if not more, who have worked up the same amount of evidence to the contrary

Nonsense. I'll happily post one hundred links to research papers that support evolution for everyone you offer that refutes it. Begin at your convenience.

Why are you threatened by Creationism?

You lacked the courtesy to answer my question. That is noted. I won't treat you in the same dismissive way.
I consider Creationism a threat for several reasons. The anti-intellectual spirit common to the majority of Creationists is a threat to society. The contemptuous misrepresentations of facts is a stain on the human spirit that corrupts the young and the gullible. I could go on, but you get the drift.

Look again.

Your post count is barely out of single figures. Your post info. identifies you as a "New Member". When I tried to look at your profile to find when you joined I was told I was excluded, by you, from seeing that profile. (That's not very friendly.) If you don't wish to be thought a new member then don't make posts that identify yourself as such.

I'm not breaking any forum rules, but you're desperate to find something to accuse me of. It's clear I'll need to watch my back for you. Good to know.

Get real! You see my atheistic morality, that I suspect you think is entirely self-serving, actually encourages me to offer advice and guidance to fellow humans, even when I think their ideas are more looney than an anniversary edition of Looney Tunes.
If you wish to continue making thinly veiled digs at the integrity of Christians who accept evolution then go ahead. Sooner or later one of them, being personally insulted by your remarks will take the appropriate step.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I called you Deist because your buddy tried to accuse me of breaking the forum rules by stating that you aren't Christian. Done with that point.

I posted the definition of Theory for all to see. The Dictionary that I accessed used Darwin's THEORY of Evolution for its example.

Can we move on?

I didn't see that first part, so that bit just threw me for a loop.

Except that in your first post on this thread, you do the opposite and try and make theory out to be something that is just an idea. Like, is there any reason you wrote this:
"True Science, that of honest Christians, never supported evolution THEORY."
The way you did?

ETA: Damn cross posting! Pretend that picture didn't exist.

 

[Ophiolite]

I posted the definition of Theory for all to see. The Dictionary that I accessed used Darwin's THEORY of Evolution for its example.

Can we move on?

If you want a sound definition of an engineering term you do not use a dictionary.
If you want a sound definition of a medical term you do not use a dictionary.
If you want a sound definition of a archaeological term you do not use a dictionary.
And if you want a sound defintion of science term you do not use a dictionary.

This is something that, in my experience, is thoroughly understood by anyone who has successfully passed through Tertiary educaiton, and a fair percentage of those who have completed their Secondary educaiotn. Relying upon a dictionary definition of theory to support your argument undermines your argument and makes you look ill-prepared to discuss the subject. I don't think you want either of those things, so I recommend a different approach.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Speaking of false science, what kind of science is it when you have no proof of a theory and you carry it forth into the world as if it were proven fact? What kind of science is that?

The first part is regular science, the second part is unscientific.

In science, proof is reserved for formal systems like mathematics or logic. Even the best-tested most widely accepted scientific theories are always provisional, although they may often be taken as being beyond reasonable doubt.

If someone carries a scientific theory 'forth into the world as if it were proven fact', they are being unscientific. Typically it is a fault of media presentations and interpretations of science, but scientists have been known to do it - within the scientific establishment provisionality is implicit, so may not always be made explicit.

Provisionality means that when new evidence is found that is inconsistent with the theory or invalidates it, the theory can be revised or discarded. Revision is not uncommon, but discarding is rare, since to become a scientific theory the idea must be well-tested and widely accepted.

 

[Think...]

Except that the historical record doesn't show that. You either got that claim from somewhere, or you made it up since Lucy is not a fraud.
If Lucy is a fraud, then you can show how it is a fraud.

For someone who presents themself as knowing so much about science, I don't believe for a second that you're unaware of the Lucy HOAX. It is very well known among the science community. It was a 40% chimp skeleton and the rest was hoaxed. The hoaxers were totally busted for their shenanigans.

"This 1974 find by Donald Johanson was a fantastic discovery of a 40 percent chimpanzee skeleton. The fingers and toes were both long and curved, similar to those of modern-day apes and helpful for swinging from trees. Of course, that would not match what the Darwinists need to proclaim as “the missing link,” so the hip bones were artificially reconstructed to give the appearance that Lucy actually walked upright and the obvious ape-like skull was adjusted to look more like man’s."

The Lucy fraud and evolution: letter to the editor - cleveland.com

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For someone who presents themself as knowing so much about science, I don't believe for a second that you're unaware of the Lucy HOAX. It is very well known among the science community. It was a 40% chimp skeleton and the rest was hoaxed. The hoaxers were totally busted for their shenanigans.

"This 1974 find by Donald Johanson was a fantastic discovery of a 40 percent chimpanzee skeleton. The fingers and toes were both long and curved, similar to those of modern-day apes and helpful for swinging from trees. Of course, that would not match what the Darwinists need to proclaim as “the missing link,” so the hip bones were artificially reconstructed to give the appearance that Lucy actually walked upright and the obvious ape-like skull was adjusted to look more like man’s."

The Lucy fraud and evolution: letter to the editor - cleveland.com

One, I've never presented myself as 'knowing so much about science'.

So the evidence for you claim... is a letter to the editor that gives no evidence for its claim either? That's worthless.