On how the word 'theory' is used

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You claimed you'd studied evolution all your life, and then claimed you weren't a student of evolution, you can't have it both ways. Which was is it?

Now get back to the topic and back up your claim, in the words of your illustrious brother Mr Robbie Carrobie -

your position is an act of faith, you doubt but you have no scientific data with which to backup your claim, it therefore remains unsubstantiated and pure conjecture......

i have studied chess for the last four years, but i have never attended any chess school, college or lecture, officially i have never studied chess, although i remain a student of the game. This is what Galvo meant, he has read articles, been exposed to the ideas, has studied aspects ad features but has never officially been a student of the sordid theory, therefore its easy to see that what is apparently a paradox, is in fact nothing of the sort on closer inspection.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You claimed you'd studied evolution all your life, and then claimed you weren't a student of evolution, you can't have it both ways. Which was is it?

Now get back to the topic and back up your claim, in the words of your illustrious brother Mr Robbie Carrobie -

your position is an act of faith, you doubt but you have no scientific data with which to backup your claim, it therefore remains unsubstantiated and pure conjecture......

This is my last post to you until YOU PROVE evolution is FACT, I'm done waisting my time here...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dont think so, indeed, i find the creation account infinitely more enthralling than, its just blind chance and mindless matter, i mean, its hardly appeals to ones imagination, does it!

And that is your opinion. And you are entitled to have that opinion. I don't mind that.

My opinion is that the Truth is not to be seeken in places that enthralls you, but where the observations meet the theory. I like the Ring Trilogy by tolkien, it enthralls me, but I don't believe in small Hobbits with hairy feet only for that. The Truth is that I can differ enthralling stories from hard facts.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have studied chess for the last four years, but i have never attended any chess school, college or lecture, officially i have never studied chess, although i remain a student of the game. This is what Galvo meant, he has read articles, been exposed to the ideas, has studied aspects ad features but has never officially been a student of the sordid t ...[text shortened]... y to see that what is apparently a paradox, is in fact nothing of the sort on closer inspection.

Thanx..... Sometimes I make explinations to complicated instead of simple and to the point. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have studied chess for the last four years, but i have never attended any chess school, college or lecture, officially i have never studied chess, although i remain a student of the game. This is what Galvo meant, he has read articles, been exposed to the ideas, has studied aspects ad features but has never officially been a student of the sordid t ...[text shortened]... y to see that what is apparently a paradox, is in fact nothing of the sort on closer inspection.

You have studied chess and have a rounded appreciation of the game. We could discuss varies openings, differing strategies, the merits of a closed or open position, your preference as to whether you like to fianchetto your kings bishop or not etc etc.

If i had claimed to have studied chess all my life and then demonstrated a lack of basic knowledge, ie. claimed the sicilain opening was 1.e4 b5, or had never heard of Tal, or couldn't find the basic of check mates. You would think i wasn't being completely honest about my 'chess studies' would you?

Originally posted by galveston75
This is my last post to you until YOU PROVE evolution is FACT, I'm done waisting my time here...

Cheerio, shut the door on your way out please............

And it's wasting, not waisting.

Originally posted by galveston75
Stop accusing me of lying on this forum. I never have and never will. Do it again and I'll report you for slander...

So it's safe to say it's only sheer stupidity?

Originally posted by Palynka
So it's safe to say it's only sheer stupidity?

Jerk....

Originally posted by galveston75
Jerk....

Right. And covering your ears and shouting "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA" is polite?

(by the way, I mean it as a metaphor)

(in case you're wondering)

Originally posted by Palynka
Right. And covering your ears and shouting "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA" is polite?

(by the way, I mean it as a metaphor)

(in case you're wondering)

You shouldn't say that to anyone even joking... Not cool

Originally posted by galveston75
This is my last post to you until YOU PROVE evolution is FACT, I'm done waisting my time here...

There is vast amounts of evidence that proves that evolution is a FACT (more specifically, evolution by natural selection). Just look at fossil evidence, DNA evidence, observed evidence of species that have a short life span (e.g. speciation experiments done with fruit flies), and observed evidence with selective breeding of dogs (artificial selection wouldn't work if natural selection didn't work), experiments done on E. Coli bacteria by Richard Lenski, geographical evidence where speciation has caused evolutionary divergence, etc.

In fact, since Darwin suggested it, there has been more and more evidence coming up to prove him correct. The evidence is so overwhelming that Darwin would be quite impressed himself.

All you have to do is look it all up and read about it.

Originally posted by lausey
There is vast amounts of evidence that proves that evolution is a FACT (more specifically, evolution by natural selection). Just look at fossil evidence, DNA evidence, observed evidence of species that have a short life span (e.g. speciation experiments done with fruit flies), and observed evidence with selective breeding of dogs (artificial selection wouldn' ...[text shortened]... n would be quite impressed himself.

All you have to do is look it all up and read about it.

I do keep up with it pretty good but for all your stating as fact one can find evidence against that.
On the point of dogs and the breeding man does to get different shapes and sizes means nothing if this is what your referring to. They are still all dogs and if left alone would eventually go back to a dog that would pretty much look like all the others around him.
Just watched a show yesterday about the Galapagos turtles and how much bigger they were then anywhere on earth and that Darwin said there was proof of evolution. What???? There still turtles, not some new species.
I don't get that kind of reasoning......

Originally posted by galveston75
I do keep up with it pretty good but for all your stating as fact one can find evidence against that.

But zero scientific evidence. One can claim to have evidence for just about anything, but it is another thing for that evidence to stand up to scientific scrutiny.

On the point of dogs and the breeding man does to get different shapes and sizes means nothing if this is what your referring to. They are still all dogs and if left alone would eventually go back to a dog that would pretty much look like all the others around him.
Just watched a show yesterday about the Galapagos turtles and how much bigger they were then anywhere on earth and that Darwin said there was proof of evolution. What???? There still turtles, not some new species.
I don't get that kind of reasoning......
You are contradicting yourself. First you say that dogs, if left alone would 'go back to a dog that would pretty much look like all the others around him'. Then you give an example of a turtle that does not look like pretty much all the others around him - proving your earlier claim false.

You also make the error of using the word species, when you don't know its definition.
First of all what is on the Galapagos are tortoises not turtles, and secondly, they are a different species from those found elsewhere.

How you can claim to know anything about evolution when you don't even know what a species is, is beyond me. Thats like proclaiming that relativity is false, when you don't know what velocity is, or that Calculus is all wrong when you cant even multiply.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But zero scientific evidence. One can claim to have evidence for just about anything, but it is another thing for that evidence to stand up to scientific scrutiny.

On the point of dogs and the breeding man does to get different shapes and sizes means nothing if this is what your referring to. They are still all dogs and if left alone would eventuall ou don't know what velocity is, or that Calculus is all wrong when you cant even multiply.

This is very common.

When creationists misuses words like 'theory', 'species', and thinks that BigBang and abiogenesis is part of the evolution theory, etc, even redefines scientific terms, they are showing lack of knowledge of the evolution theory, yet discussing it thinking they know enough of it.

When non-JWers (like myself) discuss the paedophilia problem and child abuse within the JW organization, they accuse me of not having enough knowledge of how the inner circle of JW works.

It's like a dyslectic accuses others for others mis-spellings. Like an alcoholic accuses others for drinking. Like a childmolestor accuses others for paedophilia.

Being proud of non-knowledge, at the same time accusing others for not knowing is simple retorics, standard A1. Belittle others, and grow in significance themselvse.

(This is not an attack of any specific person debating here, but this phenomenon in general.)

Originally posted by lausey
There is vast amounts of evidence that proves that evolution is a FACT (more specifically, evolution by natural selection). Just look at fossil evidence, DNA evidence, observed evidence of species that have a short life span (e.g. speciation experiments done with fruit flies), and observed evidence with selective breeding of dogs (artificial selection wouldn' n would be quite impressed himself.

All you have to do is look it all up and read about it.

fossil evidence, fossil evidence, plueeeeeez you people practically had to invent a new theory with which to substantiate your old one, that being punctuated equilibrium!, scientific fact!

mutations and experiments on Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) by Dobzhansky resulted in no new species and in every instance the mutated fly was inferior to the parent! scientific fact!

“The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.” - Heredity and the Nature of Man, p. 126.

shall we go on to talk about how the genetic code has built in mechanism which not only resist but repair any damage? scientific fact!

“the life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation” are preserved “by enzymes that continually repair” genetic damage. “In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesized.” - Scientific American, “Inducible Repair of DNA,” by Paul Howard-Flanders, November 1981, p. 72.

I will not be drawn into another fruitless and pointless discussion about evolution v creation, to term it a fact was stepping over the line, it is indeed an act of faith, a greater leap of faith in fact that to profess believe in a creator! let us offer up incense to Darwins effigy, sing the hymns of Dawkins and read from our sacred text, the God delusion - atheism is an act of faith!